- As we blogged about earlier in the month, a district court judge rejected Upside Foods’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Florida’s ban on cultivated meat. As we noted, the decision was not a final decision on the merits and since the decision Upside has filed an amended complaint and, most recently, Florida has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
- The motion to dismiss covers much of the same ground that was briefed during the motion for a preliminary injunction, including the question of whether Florida’s ban is preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection Act (unsurprisingly, Florida has maintained its position that it is not).
- The motion to dismiss also responds to Upside’s argument that the law violates the dormant commerce clause. Under dormant commerce clause precedent a facially neutral law effectuating a legitimate local interest is not invalid unless it imposes a substantial burden on interstate commerce which clearly outweighs the local benefits. Florida argues that Upside has alleged only speculative harm to potential sales in Florida and has not alleged any burden on interstate commerce.
- We will continue to monitor and report on updates to this case (Upside Foods, Inc. v. Simpson, C.A. No. 4:24-cv-316).
© 2025 Keller and Heckman LLP
National Law Review, Volume XIV, Number 332