This decision affirms a preliminary injunction issued against the California Attorney General and private parties preventing them from filing suit under Prop. 65 to require food manufacturers to give the standard Prop. 65 warning about acrylamide being a chemical supposedly “known” to cause cancer.  Under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), the compelled speech (the required Prop. 65 warning) is constitutional only if “the compelled warning (1) requires the disclosure of purely factual and uncontroversial information only, (2) is justified and not unduly burdensome, and (3) is reasonably related to a substantial government interest.”  The decision holds that the Prop. 65 warning is not uncontroversial since there is considerable disagreement among authorities about whether acrylamide causes cander in humans.  Also, the warning is misleading to consumers as it would require the manufacturer to say that acrylamide is “known” to California to be a cancer-causing chemical.