Hunton Retail Law Resource

We previously reported that in December 2025, a food and beverage industry coalition challenged a Texas law requiring food and beverage manufacturers doing business in the state to affix warning labels on products containing any of 44 specific artificial colors, chemicals, and additives.

Just one week after initiating the litigation, the Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from enforcing the statute while the litigation is pending. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas heard oral arguments on February 3, 2026.

On February 11, 2026, the court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion, concluding that they satisfied all four elements required for preliminary injunctive relief.  Specifically, the Court found that the Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim, finding that the statute constitutes a content-based regulation likely subject to strict scrutiny.  At this stage, however, the Court did not find a likelihood of success on the Plaintiffs' void-for-vagueness or preemption claims.

Because the Court found a substantial likelihood of success on the First Amendment claim, it likewise determined that the irreparable harm requirement was met.

Finally, the Court addressed the balance of equities and public interest elements together, reasoning that although Texas has an interest in promoting public health, it does not have an interest in enforcing a law that violates the First Amendment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ Motion was granted, enjoining enforcement of the statute during the pendency of the litigation.

This decision represents an early, but significant, development in the emerging landscape of ultra-processed food litigation.  As states continue to explore new regulatory approaches targeting ultra-processed foods and specific ingredients, Texas has positioned itself at the forefront of a broader policy debate – one that increasingly intersects with constitutional limits on compelled commercial speech.

Our firm will continue to monitor developments in this litigation and track related ultra-processed food legislation and regulatory efforts across the country.