January 12, 2016 – the ABA et al filed a motion for a temporary injunction to block the implementation of the law planned for July 2016.
April 7, 2016 – the hearing for the judge to consider the injunction took place at the United States District Court, Northern District of California San Francisco Courthouse, presided over by Judge Edward Chen. Read the transcript from the hearing (PDF).
May 17, 2016 – Judge Chen ruled in SF’s favor by denying the industry’s attempt to temporarily block the implementation of our new law to require warning labels on ads for sugary drinks. Read the ruling (PDF).
June 7, 2016 – Judge Chen grants Plaintiff’s motion for injunction pending appeal.
April 17, 2017 - Warning Label Court Date at 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 7th and Mission, courtroom 3 on 3rd floor. Read the public documents associated with the lawsuit.
After Judge Chen denied the preliminary injunction to block implementation of the ordinance in May 2016, the plaintiffs, in June 2016, asked him to stay the implementation of the ordinance for however long it would take the Ninth Circuit to resolve the appeal of the order denying the preliminary injunction. Read the public documents from the appeal process.
September 19, 2017 – The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision upholding the soda warning ordinance. Read the opinion of the court (PDF).
October 17, 2017 – The SF City Attorney filed a petition for rehearing seeking a hearing before the full 9th Circuit (en banc) to consider San Francisco’s sugary drink warnings. The 9th Circuit does not have to hear the case en banc; they will grant or deny the petition in 3-6 months. If they grant it, there will be new appellate argument before a larger panel of judges. Read the petition (PDF).
January 30, 2018 – The 9th Circuit agreed to rehear the soda warning case.
September 26, 2018 – The SF District Attorney argued the SSB warning label case in the Ninth Circuit yesterday before a panel of 11 judges (en banc).
January 31, 2019 – The Ninth Circuit announced its en banc decision: it held that the warning likely violates the First Amendment, but only because the 20% size requirement was not justified; it pointed to a study indicating that 10% would be large enough to accomplish the City’s purpose. It expressly did not address whether the text of the warning is accurate (a separate requirement).
