A federal court has issued a ruling in California Chamber of Commerce v. Xavier Becerra that temporarily prevents the state Attorney General and private attorneys from bringing legal action in cases that involve Proposition 65 acrylamide warnings on food and beverages.
“The ruling makes clear that where Prop 65 warnings are not grounded in fact and the science is controversial, forcing businesses to warn is a clear violation of their First Amendment rights,” Adam Regele, a CalChamber senior policy advocate specializing in Environmental Policy, Housing and Land Use, and Product Regulation, told the Northern California Record by email.
Chief Judge Kimberly Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 29 granted CalChamber’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which bars new Prop 65 acrylamide lawsuits or prosecution while the case is pending.
“Many California businesses have been struggling to stay afloat during the pandemic and are trying to keep up with rapidly changing COVID-19 requirements to protect their employees and patrons,” Regele said. “The ruling provides immediate and much welcomed relief to California businesses by prohibiting the California Attorney General and any other person from filing a Prop 65 enforcement action regarding food and beverage products containing acrylamide. Their limited time and resources should be preserved for dealing with COVID-19 compliance and safety protocols.”
The ruling does not change any current case agreements or settlements stemming from Prop 65 warning mandates.
“We would like to see a permanent injunction prohibiting all persons from filing or prosecuting a new lawsuit to enforce the Proposition 65 warning requirement for cancer as applied to acrylamide in food and beverage product,” Regele said.
“This lawsuit is about ensuring that Prop 65 required warnings are factual and noncontroversial, as well as reducing unnecessary fear for consumers and frivolous litigation against businesses.”
A final ruling date has not yet been scheduled.
A CalChamber news release states, “The CalChamber and its members look forward to final judgment in this case and an ultimate end to requiring businesses to provide misleading acrylamide warnings for California consumers.”