Our notable ruling roundup aims to keep our readers up to date on recent rulings in the food & consumer packaged goods space.
Kimberly Banks, et al. v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., No.2:20-cv-06208-DDP-RAO (C.D. Cal. – April 8, 2025): A California federal jury found defendant committed fraud and violated California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act by labeling its tea products as "Manufactured in the USA," awarding $2.36 million in damages. Plaintiffs filed the suit in 2020, alleging defendant labeled their tea products as "Manufactured in the USA," despite the majority of the tea leaves being sourced from overseas, including countries such as China and Sri Lanka. Opinion available here.
California Chamber of Commerce v. Rob Bonta, et al., No. 2:19-cv-02019-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal. – May 2, 2025): The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction in the plaintiff's favor in a suit challenging Prop. 65's requirement that companies warn buyers about dietary acrylamide in their products. Plaintiff argued that the warnings were misleading and violated the First Amendment by compelling businesses to convey a message that dietary acrylamide causes cancer, despite a lack of scientific consensus. The court agreed and concluded that the warnings were not "purely factual and uncontroversial" because they conveyed a one-sided view that dietary acrylamide poses a human cancer risk without sufficient scientific consensus. As a result, the court issued a permanent injunction preventing the enforcement of Prop. 65's warning requirements for dietary acrylamide and declared the warning requirements unconstitutional as applied to dietary acrylamide. Opinion available here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
