Bloomberg's 'Soda Ban': How the Court Struck Down the Limit on Large Sugary Drinks
New York City's attempt to cap sugary drink servings at 16 ounces was overturned by the state's highest court as an overreach of authority — an outright ban lost where choice architecture would have won.
The story of the "soda ban" is a warning that even a well-intentioned intervention shatters against poor design and the separation of powers.
The idea: 16 ounces against obesity
The Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule prohibited the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 fluid ounces (about 0.47 L) in restaurants, cinemas, and fast-food outlets; it was scheduled to take effect on 12 March 2013 (Wikipedia). Its initiator was Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who saw the portion cap as a tool against obesity.
Bypassing the City Council
The rule was adopted not by an elected legislature but by the appointed New York City Board of Health — bypassing the City Council (Wikipedia). This very procedural route became its vulnerability: critics saw in it not a concern for health but an overreach of administrative power.
The courts: from Tingling to appeal
On 11 March 2013, a day before it was to take effect, Judge Milton Tingling struck the rule down, calling it "arbitrary and capricious" because of its numerous exemptions. On 26 June 2014, the state Court of Appeals (the highest court) definitively overturned it by a 4–2 decision (Washington Post).
Why the exemptions undermined the logic
The rule did not apply to supermarkets and convenience stores, dairy or alcoholic drinks, and free refills remained legal (Wikipedia). This half-empty ban looked inconsistent: the very same soda could be bought across the street or topped up for free.
Paternalism shattered on the separation of powers
The failure was not medical but institutional: the court did not dispute the harm of sugar, but pointed out that the choice among competing policy goals is the prerogative of legislators, not of a public-health body. The case contrasts with seat belts and sugar taxes, which passed through elected bodies and therefore proved more durable.
Excerpts and dates
- 01к разделу «Патернализм, разбившийся о разделение властей»
Решение Апелляционного суда штата Нью-Йорк
«By choosing among competing policy goals, without any legislative delegation or guidance, the Board engaged in law-making and thus infringed upon the legislative jurisdiction of the City Council.»
Перевод: выбирая между конкурирующими целями политики без законодательной делегации или указаний, Совет занялся законотворчеством и тем самым вторгся в компетенцию Городского совета.