The 11 judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a
unanimous decision said the city's ordinance violated commercial
speech protected under the U.S. Constitution.
"The required warnings therefore offend plaintiffs' First Amendment
rights by chilling protected speech," the judges wrote in granting a
preliminary injunction that prevents the law from taking effect.
The judges said beverage makers were likely to suffer "irreparable
harm" if the law is implemented because the warning would "drown
out" the advertisements' other visual elements.
The San Francisco ordinance is part of a national effort to curb
consumption of soft drinks and other high-calorie beverages that
medical experts have said are largely to blame for an epidemic of
childhood obesity.
Over the past years, many U.S. localities have imposed taxes on
sugary beverages, adding a surcharge of up to 1.75 cents per ounce
(29 milliliters). At that rate, the cost of a typical 12-ounce can
of soda would rise by 21 cents.
The beverage industry has opposed the measures, saying they hit poor
and working-class families and small businesses the hardest.
[to top of second column] |
The ordinance passed by San Francisco in June 2015 required
advertisements on billboards and posters within city limits to
include a warning that drinking high-sugar beverages contributes to
obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.
A smaller, three-judge panel of the 9th blocked the law in 2017,
saying it unfairly targeted one group of products. The entire
11-judge panel in January 2018 agreed to rehear the case.
The American Beverage Association, which in 2015 asked for the
preliminary injunction, did not immediately respond to a request for
comment on Thursday's ruling.
San Francisco's City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office defended
the law in court, also did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|