Sacramento Capitol Building image via wikipedia user Suvicce

The Sacramento Superior Court recently issued a hold on AB 257, also known as the FAST Act, temporarily preventing the law from taking effect until merits of the case have been discussed in court.

This follows a declaration from the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) stating its intent to proceed with the law, despite a petition filed containing more than the minimum number of required signatures to challenge the law, according to a group called Save Local Restaurants.

AB 257, approved by the California Senate, would authorize a county or city with a population greater than 200,000 to establish a Local Fast Food Council. It would be this council’s responsibility to prescribe powers and requirements for compensation.

The law was approved on Aug. 29, 2022, by a vote of 21-12, with seven Senators absent.

Opponents of the law argued that the bill places an unfair magnifying glass on quick-service restaurants in particular, as well as other burdens that would be completely out of control of restaurant owners.

Opponents also argue that the council, composed of ten appointed members, would create an unfair bias against business owners, potentially harming small businesses’ abilities to remain profitable and forcing them to raise prices to survive.

A lawsuit filed on Dec. 29, 2022, by Save Local Restaurants – a group founded to halt the progress of the controversial law – argues that the impact of AB 257 will potentially harm local restaurant businesses by implementing regulations on employees.

“Above all, today’s decision by the Sacramento Supreme Court protects the voices of over one million California voters who exercised their democratic right in asking to vote on a piece of legislature before bearing its burden,” a press release from the Save Local Restaurants coalition reads.

The Save Local Restaurants coalition says it has gathered more than 1 million voter signatures opposing the law, announcing on Dec. 5 that it had submitted the signatures to county election officials.

On Dec. 9, the Secretary of State stated that the petition filed against AB 257 consisted of more than the necessary number of required signatures.

“While this pause is temporary, the impact is beyond just one piece of legislation and keeps intact, for the time being, California’s century-old referendum process,” the press release added.

A hearing to discuss the case in court is scheduled for Jan. 13, 2023.