WASHINGTON — The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) today expressed deep disappointment with Governor Gavin Newsom’s signing of Assembly Bill 2030. CRN warned throughout the legislative process that the law’s overly broad approach could create unnecessary barriers to lawful products, confuse consumers, and leave responsible businesses facing uncertainty about which supplements fall within its restrictions.
The governor’s decision comes despite tireless, sustained advocacy by CRN to oppose the legislation’s sweeping restrictions and advance a more targeted, science-based alternative. CRN urged lawmakers to base restrictions on a public-health assessment of specific products rather than marketing language or the presence of common ingredients, and directly appealed to the governor to veto the proposal. California’s measure closely tracks a similar law passed in New York in 2023 that CRN has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review. In its filing with the court, CRN argues that the New York law raises serious First Amendment concerns by restricting how companies can communicate truthful information about safe, legal dietary supplements.
“This is a deeply disappointing outcome for consumers and responsible businesses, and a missed opportunity for California to pursue a more thoughtful approach,” said Steve Mister, president and CEO of CRN. “Protecting young people from eating disorders is an important objective that we share. But that objective deserves policies grounded in evidence—not broad restrictions that cast suspicion on lawful products without establishing that those restrictions will address the problem.”
AB 2030 prohibits sales of dietary supplements that are “labeled, marketed or otherwise represented for weight loss or muscle-building” and over-the-counter diet pills to consumers under 18, with an exception for those who have a prescription. It establishes age-verification requirements for retail and remote sales and authorizes civil penalties of up to $500 per violation.
CRN’s concerns extend beyond products explicitly promoted for weight loss. The law allows courts to consider statements or images that even “imply” these effects, claims about metabolism or strength, and even how products are grouped in stores or online when determining whether a supplement is covered. In its veto request, CRN warned that the framework could sweep in products such as fiber and protein supplements, general wellness products, and even multivitamins.
Determined advocacy for a better approach
CRN’s opposition was accompanied by a constructive alternative: focus any restrictions on products determined by the California Department of Public Health to contribute to specified health conditions. Rather than relying on labeling, advertising, product placement, or the presence of common ingredients as proxies for risk, CRN urged policymakers to establish an actual health-based justification for restricting a product.
“We did not simply object to this legislation. We pressed for a better, more defensible approach,” Mister said. “Our position has been consistent: identify the actual risk and address it directly. Responsible companies should not have to navigate an uncertain boundary between ordinary nutrition claims and age-restricted products, and consumers should not be left to assume that a sales restriction is proof a product is unsafe.”
CRN also raised concerns about the law’s implications for truthful commercial speech. Its veto request highlighted First Amendment questions similar to those raised in CRN’s challenge to New York’s supplement age-restriction law, for which the association has sought U.S. Supreme Court review. CRN’s March 2026 petition argues that New York’s restrictions improperly turn on how otherwise lawful products are marketed. (Council for Responsible Nutrition)
