Product Liability and Mass Tort Monitor: April 2026

The Product Liability & Mass Tort Monitor is a monthly newsletter delivering critical updates, data insights and actionable strategies for navigating the complexities of product liability and mass tort litigation. This month’s issue looks at a case over the new food labeling mandate in Texas.

A federal court blocked the enforcement of a Texas law requiring food manufacturers to place conspicuous warning labels on products containing one or more of the statute’s listed ingredients. The court’s decision in American Beverage Association, et al. v. Paxton, Case No. 6:25-CV-00566-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 2025) — and the appeal that followed — could have significant implications for the growing wave of state-level food labeling mandates tied to the federal government’s Make America Healthy Again initiative. Food manufacturers and other stakeholders should monitor developments closely.

On Feb. 11, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction barring Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from enforcing Section 9 of Texas Senate Bill 25 (SB 25), also known as the “Make Texas Healthy Again Act.” Four food and beverage trade associations challenged SB 25 on multiple constitutional grounds, including alleged violations of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and federal preemption under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act.

As discussed in the February Newsletter, the district court’s injunction is just another instance in a growing wave of federal court rulings limiting the enforcement of a statewide Extended Producer Responsibility statute. SB 25 requires food manufacturers to place a warning label on any product offered for sale in Texas that contains one or more of the 44 listed ingredients, including color additives, bleached flour, potassium bromate and propylparaben. SB 25 is enforced by the Texas attorney general, who may seek an injunction and civil penalties of up to $50,000 per day for each distinct food product found in violation of the statute.

The court granted the trade associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction after finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment compelled-speech claim. The court also found that the state failed to carry its burden because it did not adequately explain why the law survives strict scrutiny.

Although the court acknowledged that the attorney general demonstrated a “substantial interest” in supporting the health and well-being of its citizens by promoting better ingredients in foods sold in Texas, it found that Section 9 of SB 25 does not directly and materially advance that interest and is not narrowly tailored.

Despite the injunction, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) finalized its implementing rules on Feb. 20, 2026, just nine days after the court’s order. In the final rulemaking, DSHS stated that ingredients considered Generally Recognized as Safe or determined to be safe by the FDA or USDA are not subject to the rule requirements — a move that could substantially narrow SB 25’s practical scope, given that most of the 44 listed ingredients fall into these categories.

On March 5, 2026, Paxton filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Stakeholders — including food manufacturers, brand owners, retailers, trade associations and state regulators — should closely monitor this case and the Fifth Circuit appeal. In the meantime, companies should continue to assess their product lines for compliance readiness, particularly given that the injunction does not protect entities that are not members of the four plaintiff trade associations.

For more information on these issues, contact the authors or their colleagues at McGuireWoods’ Product Liability & Mass Tort Practice Group.