Federal District Judge, Kristine Baker ruled as unconstitutional an extremely restrictive Arkansas labeling law.  The decision found that the plaintiff,  Tofurkey, a manufacturer of plant-based alternatives to meat, did not intend to deceive consumers using terms including "burger" and "hot dog" on labels in contravention of the Arkansas state law.  Judges in previous cases have rejected state labeling laws discriminating against plant-based products based on infringement of First Amendment rights.  In her ruling, Judge Baker noted that Tofurky clearly stated that products contained no animal-based ingredients.

Similar rulings have been made following challenges to laws in Louisiana with respect to meat and in California for dairy products.  Mississippi amended their state labeling law to require a simple statement that foods are plant-based.  Legal challenges are currently in progress with respect to labeling prohibitions enacted by Oklahoma and Missouri.

In commenting on the rejection of the Arkansas Labeling Law, Jaime Athos, president and CEO of Tofurky stated, "consumers choose plant-based foods because of their values, nutritional or taste preferences and concerns about the impacts of animal agriculture on the environment".  He added, "the passage of these laws is never about helping consumers, it is a negative attempt by state legislatures to interfere in the marketplace and limit competition directed against animal agriculture’s interests".

Legislatures will have as much difficulty in framing labeling laws that discriminate against plant-based foods as they have in enacting Ag-Gag laws that have all been declared unconstitutional on legal challenge.

Successive rulings by appeals courts has created a wall of case-law that will impede regulation of  labeling of egg substitutes requiring appropriate promotional efforts by the AEB.