On May 2, 2025, the Eastern District of California found that Prop 65 warning requirements for dietary acrylamide violate the First Amendment, and granted a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of those warnings.  

The Court summarized its holding as follows:

The Court finds that the Prop 65 warnings for dietary acrylamide are misleading and controversial as they state that dietary acrylamide is carcinogenic to humans despite vigorous scientific debate concerning that conclusion and compel CalChamber’s members to espouse that view despite their disagreement. Thus, the Court finds the State’s Prop 65 warnings as to dietary acrylamide are unconstitutional and will grant CalChamber’s request for declaratory relief and a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of the Prop 65 warning requirements as to dietary acrylamide. 

Note that acrylamide is also listed under Prop 65 as a reproductive toxicant. The permanent injunction is broadly worded, but focuses on Prop 65 warning requirements for dietary acrylamide as a carcinogen. Although the safe harbor exposure level for acrylamide as a reproductive toxicant is relatively high (140 ug/day) in comparison to that for cancer (0.2 ug/day), how this permanent injunction may affect enforcement of Prop 65 warning requirements for acrylamide as a reproductive toxicant is not yet clear. 

The Court’s permanent injunction may be appealed but, for now, enforcement of Prop 65 warning requirements for dietary acrylamide—at least as a carcinogen—cannot be enforced.

The Court’s order can be found here.