Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.metnews.com/articles/2006/salm121406.htm" target="_blank">http://www.metnews.com/article s/2006/salm121406.htm</a>
Originally Posted By alexbook If I'm reading this right, it means that California can't pass a law allowing people to sue over mislabeled food, because that would conflict with Federal law: >>“We conclude that in section 337(a) Congress made clear its intention to preclude private enforcement of the FDCA, that a state law private right of action based on an FDCA violation would frustrate the purposes of exclusive federal and state governmental prosecution of the act, and that section 337(a) impliedly preempts all of the plaintiffs’ causes of action.â€<< That can't be right, can it?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder What they're saying is that private plaintiffs (regular joes) can't bring suit to enforce sections of the FDCA, only a state or the Feds can. States can't create a law either allowing regular joes to bring suit, because the FDCA already provides enough consumer protection by having either a state or the feds enforce under the law.
Originally Posted By alexbook Could the state pass a law covering the same crimes as the FDCA, and allow private plaintiffs to sue under *that* instead? If not, does this mean that federal law completely trumps the state's rights in this area? How do they justify that under the Constitution?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Yes, it does mean the state can't pass a similar law. The Constitution provides for "federal preemption", meaning federal law controls when there is a question between two similar state and federal law.
