Consumer-Packaged Goods Companies Gain Ground Against State Labeling Mandates

Within the last few months, two federal courts in Texas and California have blocked separate state product-labeling laws. In February, a court halted a Texas requirement that certain foods must carry a government-scripted health warning. And earlier this month, a court in California enjoined the state’s “Truth in Recycling” law, which would have restricted when packaging could be labeled as recyclable.

Together they signal that courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize state labeling mandates under the First Amendment, a welcome development for consumer-packaged goods (CPG) companies navigating a growing patchwork of state rules.

Texas Food Labeling Law Challenged

Texas Senate Bill 25, the “Make Texas Healthy Again Act,” zeroed in on 44 ingredients, such as certain color dyes, bleached flour, titanium dioxide, and some preservatives. Under the law, any food or beverage sold in the state that contains these ingredients requires a conspicuous warning stating that the product contains an ingredient not recommended for human consumption in other jurisdictions.

On February 11, a court stepped in and granted a preliminary injunction. The court found that the law runs afoul of the First Amendment by forcing businesses to broadcast a message the government wrote rather than one of their own choosing, deeming it “forced speech.”

Accordingly, the court held that strict scrutiny governed, because the statute dictated an exact, word-for-word script for companies to repeat. The law failed because the warning did not serve a compelling state interest, nor was it narrowly tailored, particularly given that many of the 44 ingredients are actually permitted in some or all of the foreign jurisdictions the warning cites.

Even under the more forgiving intermediate-scrutiny test, the law would still fall short. While Texas had a substantial interest in its residents’ health, the law did not “directly and materially advance” that interest, nor was it narrowly tailored to it.

Although the ruling technically applies only to the four plaintiff organizations and their members, it is unlikely Texas will attempt to enforce the law against any manufacturer, and an appeal is pending.

California Recycling Label Rules Face Scrutiny

California’s SB 343 took a different regulatory approach. Instead of dictating a word-for-word message, it limited when companies could make recyclability representations. Under the law, a package displaying the “chasing arrows” symbol, or another statement indicating that the package is recyclable would not be permitted unless the package satisfied complex and confusing statutory requirements—called the “60/60” threshold.

On July 14, a court granted a preliminary injunction blocking California from enforcing the law. The California ruling rests on two constitutional pillars.

First, the court held that the provisions of the law were so poorly written that they did not give manufacturers fair warning of what the law required. Accordingly, the court found the law unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Second, and with broader reach, the court found the law could not survive First Amendment scrutiny. Applying the intermediate-scrutiny test for commercial speech, the court concluded that even accepting that California had a substantial interest in reducing consumer confusion and improving recycling rates, the state failed to show how SB 343 would materially advance those goals.

The law also failed the final factor: it was broader than necessary because it swept up truthful, qualified claims the state could address through less restrictive means, such as permitting statements like “recyclable in some areas; check locally.” The injunction is preliminary, and an appeal is likely.

CPG Compliance and FDA Labeling Outlook

Several takeaways stand out for CPG companies navigating the complex patchwork of state laws and regulations regarding labeling.

First, the First Amendment is proving a powerful tool against both compelled disclosures (Texas) and restrictions on truthful claims (California).

Second, similar laws remain on the books elsewhere. For example, Louisiana’s SB 14, an ingredient-disclosure law, is set to take effect in 2028, but the Texas decision may offer a roadmap for challenging it.

Third, the fallout could reach well beyond recycling labels into other Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regimes. California’s SB 54 leans on similar recyclability definitions that the court found too vague to enforce. With other states implementing EPR programs of their own, national brands should revisit how they handle compliance across jurisdictions.

For now, companies should stay aligned with existing FDA labeling requirements and remain guarded against enterprising plaintiffs’ lawyers eager to leverage the complex and sometimes contradictory state patchwork of labeling laws.