The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled on May 2 in favor of Californians’ First Amendment rights.
In California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, the Court found that “Prop 65 warnings for dietary acrylamide are misleading and controversial as they state that dietary acrylamide is carcinogenic to humans despite vigorous scientific debate concerning that conclusion and compel CalChamber’s members to espouse that view despite their disagreement.”
The Court went on to find that “the State’s Prop 65 warnings as to dietary acrylamide are unconstitutional and will grant CalChamber’s request for declaratory relief and a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of the Prop 65 warning requirements as to dietary acrylamide.”
CalChamber Statement
“Now, after more than five years, businesses will have the longstanding issue of unnecessary Prop 65 warnings decided,” said Jennifer Barrera, CalChamber President and CEO, in a statement released the day of the ruling. “Compelling businesses to provide burdensome warnings that lack scientific backing is simply unconstitutional.”
The decision echoes concerns raised by Judge Daniel Calabretta during oral arguments, particularly that the average consumer is likely to misinterpret the warning as affirming a definitive cancer risk unsupported by a consensus of scientific evidence.
“Today’s ruling not only protects businesses from enforcement actions based on these warnings, but also upholds the principle that government-mandated disclosures must be factually accurate and not misleading,” added Barrera.
Background
On October 7, 2019, The California Chamber of Commerce filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of California challenging California’s requirement under Proposition 65 that businesses provide cancer warnings for products containing acrylamide, a chemical that forms naturally in cooking certain foods.
The lawsuit alleged that the mandatory warning violates the First Amendment by compelling false or misleading speech. The State of California and a private intervenor, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT), opposed the lawsuit and defended the warning requirement.
In March of 2021, the court granted a preliminary injunction halting new lawsuits to enforce the Prop 65 warning requirement for acrylamide. At that time, the court found the warning language likely violated the First Amendment because it conveyed a misleading impression of scientific certainty about cancer risk.
CERT appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the injunction in March of 2022. After discovery and the full briefing and argument on CalChamber’s summary judgment motion, the Eastern District granted CalChamber’s motion.
