New York City grants three-month reprieve from sugary drink fines
Businesses dreading New York Citys impending sugary drink ban won a brief reprieve today, as city officials announced that they will not impose fines for the first three months after the measure takes effect.
January 16, 2013 at 05:36 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Businesses dreading New York City's impending sugary drink ban won a brief reprieve today, as city officials announced that they will not impose fines for the first three months after the measure takes effect.
The ban, which was passed in September and is slated to take effect on March 12, will prevent businesses such as restaurants, movie theaters and delis from selling sodas or other sugary drinks that are larger than 16 ounces. The city's Department of Health said Tuesday that the ban will take effect as scheduled, but that businesses will have a three-month grace period before they face a $200 fine for noncompliance.
Last October, several beverage and restaurant industry groups sued the city to block the ban's implementation, claiming that its Board of Health does not have the authority to pass the measure. Instead, the plaintiffs argued, the city council—a legislative body—should be the one to approve the law. A hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday to determine whether the lawsuit can proceed.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg maintains that the ban will help curb the city's rising obesity rates, which statistics put at 58 percent. But detractors say that the law could harm small businesses, and that it contains too many loopholes to be truly effective. Diet sodas are exempt from the law, for example, along with alcohol- and milk-based drinks.
Read more at Thomson Reuters.
For more food- and beverage-related lawsuits on InsideCounsel, see:
Businesses dreading
The ban, which was passed in September and is slated to take effect on March 12, will prevent businesses such as restaurants, movie theaters and delis from selling sodas or other sugary drinks that are larger than 16 ounces. The city's Department of Health said Tuesday that the ban will take effect as scheduled, but that businesses will have a three-month grace period before they face a $200 fine for noncompliance.
Last October, several beverage and restaurant industry groups sued the city to block the ban's implementation, claiming that its Board of Health does not have the authority to pass the measure. Instead, the plaintiffs argued, the city council—a legislative body—should be the one to approve the law. A hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday to determine whether the lawsuit can proceed.
Read more at Thomson Reuters.
For more food- and beverage-related lawsuits on InsideCounsel, see:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250