Overview of the Case
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently addressed a First Amendment challenge concerning the mandated labeling of skim milk in Florida. The case centered on a state law that permitted the sale of skim milk without the common fortification of vitamins A and D, but required that this unfortified product be sold under the designation “imitation milk product.”
The Plaintiff’s Position
The plaintiff, Ochiltree Creamery, operates under a business philosophy that is contrary to the inclusion of ingredients that are not naturally occurring in their products. Consequently, the creamery wished to market its all-natural skim milk—which did not contain added vitamins—simply as “skim milk.”
Ochiltree Creamery was prepared to include clear warnings on its product labels to inform consumers about the absence of vitamin fortification. However, the business challenged the requirement under Florida law that compelled it to label its product as an “imitation milk product,” arguing that the name was inaccurate and misleading regarding the product’s actual composition.
The Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling
In its decision, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of Ochiltree Creamery, determining that the State of Florida had not met its burden under the First Amendment to justify the mandatory labeling requirement.
The First Amendment safeguards commercial speech, including product labeling, against undue government restrictions. While the government may compel certain factual disclosures for consumer protection, any such mandate must withstand a level of scrutiny. The court found that requiring a factual product like unfortified skim milk to be labeled as an “imitation” product constituted a violation of the protection afforded to the creamery’s commercial speech. [Eugene Volokh, Baylen Linnekin, Frank Garrison]
