04.04.24
The Council for Responsible Nutriiton (CRN) has filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction in its ongoing lawsuit against New York State Attorney General Letitia James, filed in March, which challenges the constitutionality of a state law that would restrict the sale of dietary supplements marketed for weight loss and muscle building to anyone under 18. CRN's lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The law was passed in October 2023, and is slated to go into effect on April 22. It bans the sale of ‘weight loss’ or ‘muscle building’ products both online and through internet/mail order channels to anyone under 18, and requires age verification as a means of enforcement. Retailers, in turn, will be fined for each violation.
If the motion filed by CRN yesterday is granted, it would prevent the law from being enforced until the case is resolved.
“This new law pushed by social advocates relying on an unscientific and meritless argument that dietary supplements somehow cause eating disorders in young people, when the research shows they do not,” said Mister. “If we stand by and allow this law to go into effect, it won’t help young people with eating disorders, but it will stop families in the Empire State from purchasing the trusted nutrition products they use to keep their families healthy.”
Law is 'Ambiguous' and 'Chills Speech'
In its motion filed yesterday, CRN argued that the law violates the New York and U.S. constitutions and should be invalidated because it’s ambiguous, chills speech, is an excessive use of the state’s police powers, and is preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
“Right now, this law is wide open to interpretation and incredibly ambiguous in terms of how it gets enforced,” said Mister. “This vagueness will create uncertainty in the retail marketplace, which will ultimately result in retailers deciding not to sell many dietary supplement products, as they will err on the side of caution in an attempt to not break this ill-defined law.”
Mister’s full declaration supporting the motion for a preliminary injunction can be viewed here.
Both CRN and the Natural Products Association (NPA) each filed respective lawsuits against James challenging the constitutionality of the age restriction. CRN's suit was filed in the Southern District of New York last month, and NPA's suit was filed with the Eastern District of New York in December 2023.
CRN’s suit claimed that the broad and ambiguous definitions of ‘weight loss’ and ‘muscle building’ products would lead retailers to restrict sales of a broad range of products containing truthful and otherwise lawful claims, and generally would punish truthful and otherwise lawful communication, “chilling commercial speech.”
NPA challenged the constitutionality of the law on a number of grounds in its suit. Firstly, it argued that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFFDCA) preempts states from imposing labeling requirements on dietary supplements. Definitions found within the New York law also differ from those found in FFDCA. The law also allows for private causes of action in matters that are exclusively under the purview of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the suit alleges. Finally, provisions of the act in violation of FFDCA will lead to “improper, arbitrary, and capricious application of the law,” NPA said.
The law was passed in October 2023, and is slated to go into effect on April 22. It bans the sale of ‘weight loss’ or ‘muscle building’ products both online and through internet/mail order channels to anyone under 18, and requires age verification as a means of enforcement. Retailers, in turn, will be fined for each violation.
If the motion filed by CRN yesterday is granted, it would prevent the law from being enforced until the case is resolved.
“This new law pushed by social advocates relying on an unscientific and meritless argument that dietary supplements somehow cause eating disorders in young people, when the research shows they do not,” said Mister. “If we stand by and allow this law to go into effect, it won’t help young people with eating disorders, but it will stop families in the Empire State from purchasing the trusted nutrition products they use to keep their families healthy.”
Law is 'Ambiguous' and 'Chills Speech'
In its motion filed yesterday, CRN argued that the law violates the New York and U.S. constitutions and should be invalidated because it’s ambiguous, chills speech, is an excessive use of the state’s police powers, and is preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
“Right now, this law is wide open to interpretation and incredibly ambiguous in terms of how it gets enforced,” said Mister. “This vagueness will create uncertainty in the retail marketplace, which will ultimately result in retailers deciding not to sell many dietary supplement products, as they will err on the side of caution in an attempt to not break this ill-defined law.”
Mister’s full declaration supporting the motion for a preliminary injunction can be viewed here.
Both CRN and the Natural Products Association (NPA) each filed respective lawsuits against James challenging the constitutionality of the age restriction. CRN's suit was filed in the Southern District of New York last month, and NPA's suit was filed with the Eastern District of New York in December 2023.
CRN’s suit claimed that the broad and ambiguous definitions of ‘weight loss’ and ‘muscle building’ products would lead retailers to restrict sales of a broad range of products containing truthful and otherwise lawful claims, and generally would punish truthful and otherwise lawful communication, “chilling commercial speech.”
NPA challenged the constitutionality of the law on a number of grounds in its suit. Firstly, it argued that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFFDCA) preempts states from imposing labeling requirements on dietary supplements. Definitions found within the New York law also differ from those found in FFDCA. The law also allows for private causes of action in matters that are exclusively under the purview of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the suit alleges. Finally, provisions of the act in violation of FFDCA will lead to “improper, arbitrary, and capricious application of the law,” NPA said.
