Mr S Leather Lawsuit 2026: $21,000 California Settlement, No Consumer Payouts
Quick Answer
- Is it legit? Yes. Mr. S Leather settled two Prop 65 lawsuits, paying $21,000 and $22,500 in civil penalties and fees.
- How much? Nothing for consumers. These are regulatory enforcement settlements, not class action payouts.
- Key deadline? No claim deadline exists. There is no consumer fund, no administrator, and no claim form.
If you searched for the Mr. S Leather lawsuit hoping for a payout, you’re likely to be disappointed. This isn’t a class action settlement with a claims process. It’s a pair of California Proposition 65 enforcement actions brought by private nonprofit groups against the San Francisco fetish retailer. The money went to civil penalties and attorneys’ fees, not to consumers.
The confusion is understandable. The name “Mr. S Leather” has been in headlines recently for a very different reason. A Democratic congressional candidate in New York, Chris Gallant, confirmed he modeled for the store’s website between 2011 and 2020 . That political controversy has nothing to do with the Proposition 65 lawsuits. They are separate matters entirely.
This article explains what the Mr. S Leather lawsuit actually is, what the company paid, why there’s no consumer claim, and how to avoid scams promising payouts from this case.
The Facts
| Case | BSF v. Mr. S Leather (2025) and Keep America Safe and Beautiful v. Mr. S Leather (2023) |
|---|---|
| Court | San Francisco Superior Court (Case No. CGC-25-626024 for the 2025 case) |
| Status | Both cases settled. Final judgment entered April 10, 2026 for the 2025 case. |
| Fund Size | $21,000 (2025 case) and $22,500 (2023 case). No consumer fund. |
| Est. Per Person | $0. These are civil penalty settlements, not consumer payouts. |
| Claim Deadline | Not applicable. No consumer claims process exists. |
| Administrator | Not appointed. Prop 65 settlements do not use claims administrators. |
| Proof Needed | Nothing. No proof or documentation will get you a payment. |
Is the Mr S Leather Lawsuit Still Active in 2026?
No, the Mr S Leather lawsuits are both resolved. The most recent case reached a corrected settlement on December 23, 2025, and final judgment was entered on April 10, 2026 .
The case was filed by a nonprofit called Blue Sky Forever through its attorneys at Seven Hills LLP. The defendant was Mr. S. Leather Co., Incorporated. The alleged violation was failure to warn consumers about exposure to Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), a chemical found in certain leather products .
This wasn’t the first time Mr. S Leather faced a Prop 65 claim. In 2023, another nonprofit, Keep America Safe And Beautiful, Inc., filed a similar notice through Manning Law, APC. That case settled on September 28, 2023 for $22,500 . The alleged chemical was also DEHP, this time found in a replacement inflation bulb .
Both cases followed the same pattern: a private nonprofit serves a 60-day notice, the parties negotiate, and the defendant agrees to pay a civil penalty plus attorneys’ fees and take corrective action.
Key Takeaway: Both Mr. S Leather Prop 65 lawsuits are settled. No consumer claims process exists because these are regulatory enforcement actions, not class actions.
How Much Did Mr. S Leather Pay in the Prop 65 Settlements?
Mr. S Leather paid a total of $43,500 across the two Proposition 65 settlements. That money went to civil penalties and attorneys’ fees, not to consumers.
Here is the breakdown:
| Case | Settlement Date | Civil Penalty | Attorney Fees | Total Paid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BSF v. Mr. S Leather (2025) | December 23, 2025 | $2,500 | $18,500 | $21,000 |
| KASAB v. Mr. S Leather (2023) | September 28, 2023 | $2,250 | $20,250 | $22,500 |
| Combined Total | $4,750 | $38,750 | $43,500 |
The civil penalty is the amount paid to the state or the noticing party as a consequence of the alleged violation. The attorneys’ fees cover the cost of the plaintiff’s legal work in bringing the enforcement action. In Prop 65 cases, the private nonprofit that files the notice is entitled to recover its fees if the case settles or succeeds.
The injunctive relief in the 2025 case required “reformulation or warnings” . In plain terms, Mr. S Leather agreed to either change the product formula to remove or reduce DEHP, or add warnings to its products and website alerting consumers to the chemical exposure.
Reality Check: No one texts you settlement money first. Filing a claim in any settlement is always free. Third-party “claim helpers” charging fees to file Mr. S Leather claims are unnecessary and likely predatory. There is no Mr. S Leather consumer settlement to claim.
Can You File a Claim for the Mr S Leather Settlement?
You cannot file a claim for the Mr S Leather settlement because no consumer claims process exists. There is no settlement website, no claims administrator, no claim form, and no deadline .
Proposition 65 is a California law that requires businesses to provide warnings before exposing consumers to chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects. When a business violates that requirement, private parties can sue. The remedy is a civil penalty paid to the state and an injunction requiring the business to fix the problem.
The money does not go into a fund for affected consumers. It doesn’t matter whether you bought a product from Mr. S Leather or were exposed to DEHP from their goods. You are not a party to the enforcement action, and you are not entitled to a share of the penalty.
If you want to learn more about Proposition 65 or report a potential violation, you can contact the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. But that has nothing to do with getting a payout from this case.
What Is Proposition 65 and Why Did Mr. S Leather Get Sued?
Proposition 65 is a California law that requires businesses to warn consumers about significant exposures to chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. It was passed by voter initiative in 1986 and has been enforced largely through private lawsuits .
The law does not ban the chemicals it lists. It requires warnings. If a business sells a product containing a listed chemical above certain thresholds without a warning, a private party can serve a 60-day notice and, if the business doesn’t correct the violation, file a lawsuit.
DEHP is one of the chemicals on the Proposition 65 list. It’s a phthalate used to soften plastics, including some leather goods and vinyl products. The alleged exposure in the Mr. S Leather cases came from leather products and a replacement inflation bulb .
The enforcement mechanism is unusual. Private nonprofits and law firms serve as de facto enforcers. They collect civil penalties and attorneys’ fees when they win or settle. This has led to criticism that Proposition 65 generates more lawsuits and warning labels than actual public health improvements. But it remains the law in California.
Who Is Chris Gallant and How Is He Connected to Mr. S Leather?
Chris Gallant is a Democratic congressional candidate in New York’s First Congressional District. He is connected to Mr. S Leather because he modeled for the company’s website between 2011 and 2020 .
Gallant, 37, is running against Republican incumbent Nick LaLota. He served in the Army National Guard starting in 2006 and worked as a Black Hawk pilot and FAA air traffic controller .
In September 2026, the New York Post reported that Gallant had posed for photographs on the Mr. S Leather website wearing fetish gear. Some of the images were explicit. Gallant’s attorney, Sara Azari, confirmed the photos were authentic .
Azari said the photos were taken during a “private, consensual photo session involving Chris and his then-partner, with whom he was in a committed four-year relationship” . She said Gallant was friends with the store owner and agreed that select images could be used to promote products. He later asked for them to be removed when he began considering a political career, and the store complied .
The political controversy is entirely separate from the Proposition 65 lawsuits. The timing of the Prop 65 cases is coincidental. They involve chemical warnings, not the photographs.
What Happens Next with Mr. S Leather Legal Matters?
April 10, 2026: Final judgment entered in the 2025 Proposition 65 case. The case is closed .
Ongoing: Mr. S Leather is required to comply with the injunctive terms, which include reformulation or warnings for DEHP-containing products.
No consumer action: There is nothing for you to file, no date to calendar, and no payout to claim.
Political controversy continues: The Gallant story may remain in the news through the November 2026 election, but it has no legal connection to the settlements.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Mr S Leather settlement?
Yes, two Proposition 65 settlements. The 2025 case settled for $21,000, and the 2023 case settled for $22,500. Both are resolved.
Can consumers get money from the Mr S Leather settlement?
No. Proposition 65 settlements pay civil penalties and attorneys’ fees, not consumer compensation. There is no claims process.
What was Mr S Leather sued for?
Two California nonprofits sued Mr. S Leather for failing to warn consumers about DEHP, a chemical listed under Proposition 65, in leather products and a replacement inflation bulb .
Who is Chris Gallant and why is he in the news?
Chris Gallant is a Democratic congressional candidate in New York. He modeled for Mr. S Leather between 2011 and 2020. The New York Post reported on the photos in September 2026, sparking political controversy .
Is Mr S Leather still in business?
The company remains in operation. It is based in San Francisco and sells leather and fetish gear. The Proposition 65 settlements required corrective action but did not shut the business down.
How do I check if I qualify for a Mr S Leather claim?
You don’t. There is no claim to file. Any website asking for your information to file a Mr S Leather settlement claim is not legitimate.
What is Proposition 65?
Proposition 65 is a California law requiring warnings for exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. It is enforced through private lawsuits that result in civil penalties and injunctions .
