The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California upheld a ruling affirming that the state's Prop 65 warnings regarding dietary acrylamide are misleading, as they state the substance is carcinogenic despite disagreement among scientists. The court's decision provides a permanent injunction against enforcement actions compelling businesses to adopt these controversial warnings. CalChamber viewed the ruling as a victory for First Amendment rights, emphasizing that consumers might misinterpret the warnings. The judgment stresses the importance of factually accurate government-mandated disclosures, protecting businesses from unfounded legal obligations regarding dietary acrylamide.
The U.S. District Court decided that Prop 65 warnings on dietary acrylamide mislead consumers by claiming it is carcinogenic, contrary to scientific consensus.
Judge Calabretta's ruling declared California's Prop 65 requirements for dietary acrylamide unconstitutional, stating they compel businesses to share views lacking scientific consensus.
CalChamber President Jennifer Barrera remarked that the decision is a significant victory for First Amendment rights, preventing enforced misleading warnings.
The ruling emphasizes that government disclosures must be accurate, protecting businesses from unjust enforcement based on misleading Prop 65 warnings.
Collection
[
|
...
]