The Council for Responsible Nutrition’s (CRN) lawsuit in the Southern District of New York will move forward on claims that the state’s law restricting weight-loss and muscle-building supplements from minors could plausibly violate protected speech.
 
Having previously ruled that CRN has legal standing, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter wrote: “… the Court finds that CRN has met its minimum burden to suggest a First Amendment injury.”
 
He later noted the facts of the case “support the inference that the Statute might very well regulate protected speech.”
 
Carter therefore denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case.
 
However, the judge ruled that CRN’s other claims — about the law’s vagueness, the state’s excessive use of police powers, and that the statute is preempted by federal law —  were not plausible, and consequently granted dismissal of those claims.
 
Carter also appeared skeptical of the First Amendment claim, writing: “While the Court has expressed serious doubt about CRN’s likelihood of success on the merits—namely that even if the Statute implicates the First Amendment, it likely survives intermediate scrutiny—we cannot conclude at this stage that Plaintiff has failed to plead factual allegations to sufficiently ‘raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’” 
 
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Gary Gorenstein for discovery on the remaining First Amendment claim. 

CRN also filed an appeal on May 14, challenging Carter’s decision to deny its request for a preliminary injunction. 

CRN’s Response 

In its lawsuit, CRN argues that the statute infringes on First Amendment rights by restricting truthful commercial speech and access to lawful products without clear scientific justification.
 
Steve Mister, president and CEO of CRN, expressed optimism about the court’s decision and reiterated the association’s commitment to defending free speech. 

“Even as we prepare to appeal the district court judge’s earlier decision on our preliminary injunction, we are encouraged by his ruling (May 13) on our First Amendment argument,” said Mister. “The judge denied the State of New York’s motion to dismiss our claim that the age restriction law infringes on lawful commercial speech and violates the First Amendment rights of our members to make truthful and lawful claims for their products.”

Mister added: “In holding that CRN’s claims made plausible the inference that the statute ‘might very well regulate protected speech,’ this decision allows us to move forward on the merits of the case. The judge has already recognized that CRN has standing to pursue these claims on behalf of our members. (The) ruling was another milestone toward invalidating these illegitimate restrictions. We are confident in the strength of our legal arguments.”
 
CRN initially filed the lawsuit in March 2024, arguing that the law’s broad and ambiguous definitions lead to unwarranted restrictions on a wide range of dietary supplements. CRN alleged the law’s imprecise language creates a chilling effect on commercial speech, prompting retailers to overly restrict access to beneficial products out of fear of penalties.

“Like the supporters of this law, CRN’s member companies take the rise in eating disorders among young people seriously,” added Mister. “However, this law is an example of misguided regulation that will harm both the industry and consumers. Our lawsuit seeks to enjoin the enforcement of the law and protect the rights of our members to communicate truthful information about their products.”

While the district court judge granted the state’s motion to dismiss other causes of action in CRN’s complaint, the association is evaluating its opportunities to appeal those portions of the decision as well. CRN also argued that the age restrictions are invalid because they are void for vagueness, they are an excessive use of the State’s police powers without adequate justification, and they are preempted by the FDA’s federal regulatory framework for the regulation of dietary supplement and their labeling claims.