Turtle Island Foods SPC v. Soman

• Citation: 424 F.Supp.3d 552
• Decision Date: 11 December 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:19-cv-00514-KGB
• Parties: TURTLE ISLAND FOODS SPC d/b/a Tofurky Company, Plaintiff v. Nikhil SOMAN in his official capacity as Director of the Arkansas Bureau of Standards, Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

424 F.Supp.3d 552

TURTLE ISLAND FOODS SPC d/b/a Tofurky Company, Plaintiff

v.Nikhil SOMAN in his official capacity as Director of the Arkansas Bureau of Standards, Defendant

Case No. 4:19-cv-00514-KGB

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, CENTRAL DIVISION.

Signed December 11, 2019

Amanda M. Howell, Pro Hac Vice, Matthew Glen Liebman, Pro Hac Vice, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Cotati, CA, Brian Hauss, Pro Hac Vice, Jessica Almy, Pro Hac Vice, Nicole D. Manu, Pro Hac Vice, New York, NY, Jeffrey Ryan Priebe, Rainwater, Holt & Sexton P.A., Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff.

Jerry D. Garner, Attorney General's Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER

Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge

Before the Court is a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiff Turtle Island Foods SPC, d/b/a The Tofurky Company ("Tofurky") (Dkt. No. 14). Defendant Nikhil Soman, in his official capacity as Director of the Arkansas Bureau of Standards ("the State"), responded in opposition (Dkt. No. 17). On October 7, 2019, the Court conducted a hearing regarding this motion (Dkt. No. 23).

Tofurky brings this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge the constitutionality of Arkansas Act 501, Arkansas Code Annotated § 2-1-301, et seq. ("Act 501") (Dkt. Nos. 1, ¶¶ 1, 3; 14, at 1). Specifically, Tofurky challenges six provisions from Act 501: Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 2-1-305(2), (5), (6), (8), (9), and (10) (Dkt. No. 14, at 1). Tofurky asserts that these provisions represent a restriction on commercial speech that prevents companies from sharing truthful and non-misleading information about their products, does nothing to protect the public from potentially misleading information, and creates consumer confusion where none existed before in order to impede competition (Dkt. No 1, ¶ 2). As such, Tofurky claims that Act 501 violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the dormant Commerce Clause (Id. ).¹ Tofurky alleges that Act 501 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied (Id. , ¶ 3). Tofurky seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting the State from enforcing the challenged provisions of Act 501 (Dkt. No. 14, at 1). For the following reasons, the Court grants Tofurky's motion for preliminary injunction.

I. Procedural Background

Tofurky filed its complaint on July 22, 2019 (Dkt. No. 1). Act 501 took effect on July 24, 2019. See Ark. Code Ann. § 2-1-305. The State filed its answer to Tofurky's complaint on August 13, 2019 (Dkt. No. 13). Though the complaint mentions a motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 1, at 17), Tofurky separately moved for preliminary injunction on August 14, 2019 (Dkt. No. 14). Along with its motion for preliminary injunction, Tofurky included a declaration from Jamie Athos, president and Chief Executive Officer of Tofurky; a declaration from Marcus Onley, Policy Coordinator at The Good Food Institute; a declaration from Candice Misenheimer, a legal assistant at the law firm of James, Carter & Priebe, LLP; and a brief in support of the motion (Dkt. Nos. 14-1, 14-2, 14-3, 15). The State filed a response in opposition to Tofurky's motion for preliminary injunction on August 22, 2019 (Dkt. No. 17). Along with its response in opposition, the State included a copy of Act 501 and a declaration from Mr. Soman (Dkt. Nos. 17-1, 17-2). The following facts are taken from these documents. Although the Court conducted a hearing on the motion, the parties presented only argument at that hearing, no additional evidence.

II. Findings Of Fact

Tofurky is a social purpose corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and headquartered in Hood River, Oregon (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 7). Mr. Soman is the Director of the Arkansas Bureau of Standards ("the Bureau"), a division of the Arkansas Department of Agriculture (Id. , ¶ 10). Tofurky develops, produces, markets, and sells plant-based food products, including plant-based meats (Id. , ¶ 9; Dkt. No. 14-1, ¶ 3). Plant-based meats are typically made from soy, tempeh, wheat, jackfruit, textured vegetable protein, or other vegan ingredients (Dkt. No. 14-1, ¶ 3). The texture, flavor, and appearance of plant-based meats resembles meat products made from slaughtered animals (Id. ). Unlike animal-based meats, however, plant-based meats are made from vegan ingredients (Id. ). The products are marketed and sold nationwide, including throughout Arkansas (Id. , ¶¶ 3, 9). Tofurky is one of many companies selling plant-based food products in stores throughout the country, including Arkansas (Dkt. No. 15, at 3).

Tofurky uses traditional meat-based terms like "chorizo," "ham roast," and "hot dogs," alongside qualifiers like "all vegan," "plant based," "vegetarian," and "veggie," to show that its products are plant-based meats that can be served and consumed just like any other meats (Dkt. Nos. 14-1, ¶ 5; 17, at 2). The dispute regarding Act 501 notwithstanding, Tofurky's products, including its plant-based meat products, comply with federal food labeling regulations as well as numerous state and federal laws that prohibit false and deceptive labeling and marketing for food products and consumer products more generally (Dkt. No. 14-1, ¶ 12). Tofurky asserts that it cannot accurately and effectively describe its products without comparison to the conventional meat products with flavor profiles Tofurky's products are designed to invoke (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 46). Tofurky believes that its current packaging and marketing materials accurately convey the nature and contents of its plant-based meat products (Dkt. No. 14-1, ¶ 25).

As mentioned above, Act 501 took effect on July 24, 2019. See Ark. Code Ann. § 2-1-305. In relevant part, Act 501 states:

A person shall not misbrand or misrepresent an agricultural product that is edible by humans, including without limitation, by:

...

(2) Selling the agricultural product under the name of another food;

...

(5) Representing the agricultural product as a food for which a definition and standard of identity has been provided by regulations under § 20-56-219 or by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., as it existed on January 1, 2019, unless:

(A) The agricultural product conforms to the definition and standard; and

(B) The label of the agricultural product bears the name of the food specified in the definition and standard and includes the common names of optional ingredients other than spices, flavoring, and coloring present in the food as regulations require;

(6) Representing the agricultural product as meat or a meat product when the agricultural product is not derived from harvested livestock, poultry, or cervids;

...

(8) Representing the agricultural product as beef or a beef product when the agricultural product is not derived from a domesticated bovine;

(9) Representing the agricultural product as pork or a pork product when the agricultural product is not derived from a domesticated swine;

(10) Utilizing a term that is the same as or similar to a term that has been used or defined historically in reference to a specific agricultural product....

Ark. Code. Ann. § 2-1-305.

The stated legislative purpose of the Act is to protect consumers from being misled or confused by false or misleading labeling of agricultural products that are edible by humans. Id. § 2-1-301. To that end, Act 501 outlaws misbranding or misrepresenting an agricultural product edible by humans by, for example, representing the product as pork or a pork product when the product is not derived from a domesticated swine (Dkt. No. 17, at 3). See Ark. Code Ann. § 2-1-305(9). Act 501 includes similar prohibitions for products represented as beef (Dkt No. 17, at 3). See Ark. Code Ann. § 2-1-305(8). Act 501 also prohibits a person from representing a food product "as meat or a meat product" when the product is not derived from harvested livestock, poultry, or cervids (Dkt. No. 17, at 4). See Ark. Code Ann. § 2-1-305(6). Finally, Act 501 provides that the Director of the Bureau shall: (1) administer and enforce the Act; (2) promulgate rules to implement the purposes and requirements of the Act; and (3) receive and investigate complaints regarding alleged violations of the Act and the rules promulgated by the Director (Dkt. No. 17-2, ¶ 4). Ark. Code Ann. § 2-1-304.

As applied, Act 501 prohibits Tofurky from using words like "meat," "beef," "chorizo," "sausage," and "roast" to describe its plant-based meat products (Dkt. No. 14-1, ¶ 14). Tofurky asserts that Act 501 might even prohibit Tofurky from accurately depicting its products in its marketing and on its packaging (Id. ). The statute provides no exception for plant-based meat producers that clearly identify their products as being vegetarian, vegan, or made from plants (Id. ).

Each individual violation of Act 501 is punishable by a civil penalty of up to $1,000 (Id. , ¶ 15). See Ark. Code Ann. § 2-1-306. Given the volume of Tofurky's business in Arkansas, Tofurky fears that it is exposed to ruinous civil liability under Act 501 (Dkt. No. 14-1, ¶ 15). Tofurky alleges that Act 501 leaves it with four choices: (1) risk massive civil penalties, along with all of the harms that result from being penalized, by continuing its current marketing and packaging practices; (2) create specialized marketing and packaging practices just for the state of Arkansas, including attempting to police spillover from marketing in nearby states; (3) change its marketing and packaging practices nationwide; or (4) refrain from marketing or selling its products in Arkansas at all (Id. , ¶ 16).

Tofurky estimates that the cost of changing its marketing and packaging practices nationwide would verge on $1,000,000, and even still it might be impossible to ensure that no nationwide marketing enters Arkansas (Id. , ¶ 17). Further, Tofurky alleges that it is logistically and financially impractical to create separate products...