The ruling by this judge highlights a growing pattern: restrictive labeling laws are increasingly failing in the courtroom. These laws, which are ostensibly designed to prevent consumer confusion, have faced legal challenges, and judges have often concluded that they violate First Amendment rights. In her decision, District Judge Kristine Baker noted that Tofurky clearly labeled its products as plant-based. The company did not aim to mislead consumers by using terms such as “burger,” “chorizo,” and “hot dog”; rather, these terms had a legitimate purpose. The ruling stated, “The labels’ use of the words … allows Tofurky to provide meaningful and useful information to consumers regarding the products they are buying, and Tofurky’s consistent clarifications that these products do not contain animal-based meat eliminate consumer confusion.”
Furthermore, the state failed to present any evidence that consumers were confused about Tofurky’s products. In a written statement, Tofurky’s CEO and President Jaime Athos asserted that the ruling indicates consumers are choosing plant-based products because it aligns with their preferences, not out of confusion. He stated, “Consumers opt for plant-based options due to their values, nutritional considerations, taste preferences, and concerns about the effects of animal agriculture on the environment.” Athos emphasized that the legislation was not genuinely aimed at helping consumers but was an overt attempt by the state legislature to meddle in the marketplace and curtail competition against the interests of animal agriculture.
The law in Arkansas was controversial not only for its restrictions—prohibiting manufacturers from using terminology typically associated with meat unless it came from harvested or domesticated animals—but also for its severe penalties, which could reach up to $1,000 for each infraction. Tofurky argued that compliance with the law would be financially prohibitive, as the nature of food distribution and the mobility of consumers would force the company to either overhaul all of its packaging and marketing nationwide or cease product distribution in the vicinity of Arkansas.
Similar legal battles are occurring in Oklahoma and Missouri, where state laws impose certain restrictions on the labeling of plant-based products. Missouri’s law, which was the first in the nation to limit plant-based meat labeling, was challenged in 2018 by the same plaintiffs involved in the Arkansas case and remains pending, although enforcement has not been halted. The Oklahoma law mandates that any plant-based claims on food packaging must be as prominent as the product name; this law was initially contested by Upton’s Naturals in 2020, with Tofurky later taking over as the lead plaintiff and adopting a new strategy.
Plant-based companies have achieved some victories in these legal disputes. Earlier this year, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled that a state law banning meat terminology on products not derived from animal carcasses was unconstitutional, although the state has appealed. Last year, another federal judge ruled that California could not bar plant-based cheese and butter producer Miyoko’s Creamery from using common dairy terms since there was no evidence of consumer confusion. Additionally, a 2019 lawsuit challenging a Mississippi labeling law was voluntarily dismissed after the law was amended to require that plant-based foods be labeled as such.
Amanda Priest, communications director for Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, stated via email that the office is evaluating the decision to determine the next steps. As the legal landscape evolves, the conversation around plant-based labeling will continue, reflecting broader trends in consumer choice and market competition, much like the ongoing discussions surrounding products such as Citracal calcium at Costco, where consumer preferences are also at play.