A federal court has blocked the state of Arkansas from enforcing a 2019 law that made it illegal for companies to use words like “burger” or “sausage” to describe products not made from animals. Turtle Island Foods SPC v. Soman, No. 19-0514 (E.D. Ark., entered September 30, 2022). The ruling was in a lawsuit brought by the Good Food Institute, Animal Legal Defense Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Tofurky, a maker of plant-based meat products. The suit challenged an Arkansas law that would have made it illegal for companies to use words typically associated with animal products to describe products not made from animals. The plaintiffs alleged that the law violates Tofurky’s First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court granted the plaintiffs a permanent injunction against the state, finding that the state appears to believe that the simple use of words like “burger,” “ham”…
Tag Archives Arkansas
An Arkansas federal court has granted Turtle Island Foods SPC, which does business as Tofurky Co., a preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement against it of an Arkansas law prohibiting the use of meat-related terms to describe plant-based products on food packaging. Turtle Island Foods SPC v. Soman, No. 19-0514 (E.D. Ark., C. Div., entered December 11, 2019). The court found that Tofurky "likely faces ruinous civil liability, enormous operational costs, or a cessation of in-state operations" if the statute is enforced against it. The court granted the preliminary injunction despite Arkansas' indication that it "does not intend to begin enforcement" until the constitutional challenge is resolved because "there is nothing in the record binding the State to that position" and "the State has made no assurances that it will not levy retroactive penalties for Tofurky's alleged violations of Act 501 between the law's passage and this litigation's conclusion."
Turtle Island Foods, which does business as The Tofurky Co., has filed a civil-rights action alleging an Arkansas law that "prohibits purveyors of plant- or cell-based meats from using the words 'meat' and related terms like 'beef,' 'pork,' 'roast,' and 'sausage'" is "a restriction on commercial speech that prevents companies from sharing truthful and non-misleading information about their products." Turtle Island Foods SPC v. Soman, No. 19-0514 (E.D. Ark., W. Div., filed July 22, 2019). Turtle Island argues that the law creates consumer confusion rather than helping resolve it, asserting that its own marketing and its competitors' marketing "emphasizes—through the use of commonly understood terms like 'veggie burger'—that their products are plant-based alternatives to meat from live animals." The complaint further argues that other laws already prohibit misleading or deceptive labeling, including the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. Turtle Island alleges violations of…
An Arkansas federal court has dismissed with prejudice a putative class action alleging that Twinings North America, Inc. mislabeled its tea by including the statement that the product is a “natural source of antioxidants” on its packaging. Craig v. Twinings North Am., Inc., No. 14-5214 (W.D. Ark., order entered February 5, 2015). The plaintiff had argued that under the Arkansas Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (AFDCA), an act identical to the food labeling regulations of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Twinings’ tea failed to meet the nutrient level threshold—10 percent or more of the recommended daily intake—required for a claim about the nutrient content of a product. Twinings argued that the Arkansas law claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and could impose liability inconsistent with federal law. To assess the preemption argument, the court considered whether the statement “natural source of antioxidants” is…
According to a putative class action removed to Arkansas federal court, Whole Foods mislabels several of its 365 Everyday Value brand products as “organic” or “all natural” despite containing synthetic ingredients. Stafford v. Whole Foods Market Cal., No. 14-420 (E.D. Ark., removed July 22, 2014). Originally filed in Arkansas state court in June, the complaint accuses several products of mislabeling—for example, the plaintiff says, the 365 Everyday Value soft drink contains carbon dioxide, citric acid, tartaric acid, and caramel coloring despite its “all natural” label. Whole Foods argued to the state court that the potential class contains more than 100 people who seek over $5 million in damages, so the case was removed to federal court. Alleging that Whole Foods violated Arkansas labeling laws and breached warranties, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages and interest. A similar case filed in New Jersey state court alleges that Breyers, a subsidiary of Unilever…
A federal court in Arkansas has ruled that it has jurisdiction, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal standing decision under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013), to adjudicate the putative class claims filed by a woman who alleges that Frito-Lay deceives consumers by labeling its Tostitos® and SunChips® products as “All Natural” because they contain genetically modified corn and hexane-extracted soybean oil. Deaton v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-1029 (W.D. Ark., order entered June 5, 2013). At issue was whether the defendants had submitted sufficient evidence to show that the amount in controversy exceeded CAFA’s $5 million jurisdictional minimum. The plaintiff had stipulated that she would not seek more than $5 million to keep the lawsuit in state court, but conceded that her stipulation could not prevent removal under the Knowles decision. The court ruled that the…
A federal court in Arkansas has reportedly certified a class of poultry-processing plant workers who allege that the company has violated federal and state employment laws by failing to compensate them for the time they spend donning, doffing and sanitizing required gear and equipment, as well as walking to and from the production floor and performing other job-related duties. Garner v. Butterball, LLC, No. 10 01025 (E.D. Ark., decided February 22, 2012). The plaintiffs apparently demonstrated that their claims met all of the class certification requirements, although the court modified the class definition to account for statutes of limitations applicable to claims filed under the Federal Labor Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Thus, the class has been defined as hourly production employees who worked at two Butterball plants “at any time since October 1, 2006, through the date of final judgment in this action.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court…
After less than two hours of deliberation, an Arkansas jury has reportedly awarded 12 rice farmers nearly $48 million in compensatory and punitive damages for the 2006 contamination of conventional rice stocks with a genetically modified (GM) strain. The farmers alleged that Europe and Japan stopped importing U.S. rice after the contamination became known, causing a precipitous drop in the price for their crops. Most of the award against Bayer CropScience was punitive; litigation against the company is pending in a number of other states. This jury verdict, reached on April 15, 2010, tops a $1 million award rendered against the company by another Alabama jury in March. Information about that verdict can be found in issue 341 of this Update. See Associated Press, April 15, 2010.
