Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Collection

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers v. Ryan

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers v. Ryan 

1:25-cv-02417D. Colo.3 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
08/13/2025
Stipulation
Joint motion filed to set briefing schedule and hearing, and also stipulation filed to temporarily stay enforcement.
On August 13, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation in which the Colorado Attorney General agreed not to initiate enforcement actions under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act for alleged violations of the labeling law until at least 14 days after the court issues a ruling on the plaintiff’s forthcoming renewed motion for a preliminary injunction.
08/11/2025
Decision
Motion for temporary restraining order denied.
On August 11, 2025, the court denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction due to its failure to comply with the court’s requirements; the court “strongly” encouraged the State defendants “to consider the propriety of a stay of enforcement” of the law pending resolution of a renewed motion for injunctive relief.
08/06/2025
Complaint
Complaint filed.
On August 6, 2025, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers—a trade association with members that manufacture gas and electric cooking products and other appliances—filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Colorado challenging a Colorado law requiring dissemination of what the plaintiff alleged was “a non-consensus, scientifically controversial, and factually misleading government-mandated message about the purported ‘health impacts’ of gas stoves that is contrary to the view of the World Health Organization, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, and federal agencies responsible for ensuring the health and safety of American consumers.” The plaintiff alleged that the law’s disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment because they are content- and viewpoint-based. The plaintiff also alleged that the law violated its members’ First Amendment rights because the legislative record showed that the legislation was not driven by purported health impacts “but instead by the unrelated policy debate on climate change and decarbonization.”