Avery J. Topel

On July 2, 2026, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (“AG’s Office”) announced a $495,000 settlement agreement with two food distributors that allegedly marketed and sold meat and egg products obtained from animals confined in a cruel and unlawful manner. The settlement involves the Massachusetts Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals (the “Act”), which is intended to “prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement.” St. 2016, c. 333 § 1. Under the Act, it is illegal for farms to knowingly cause pigs, hens, and veal calves to be “confined in a cruel manner.” Id. §§ 2 & 5(D). This means confinement that prevents an animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending the animal’s limbs, or turning around freely. Id. § 5(E). In addition to regulating farms, the Act prohibits downstream businesses from selling certain animal products obtained from animals confined in a cruel manner. Id. §§ 2 & 3. The AG’s Office is authorized to enforce the Act, with each violation punishable by a fine of up to $1,000. Id. § 6.

The AG’s Office has now exercised that authority through its settlement with Connecticut-based City Line Distributors, LLC and New Hampshire-based Poultry Products Company of New England, LLC, both of which operate in Massachusetts as Prime Source Foods. According to the AG’s Office, the companies marketed and sold products obtained from cruelly confined animals, in violation of the Act. The AG’s Office further alleged that selling noncompliant products gave the companies an “unfair advantage” over their competitors, in violation of Chapter 93A. Because the Act requires that animals have enough space to freely move around, complying with the Act may be more expensive than traditional factory farming, a practice which generally involves packing animals together in tight quarters. Thus, farms and businesses that ignore the Act may be able to sell their products at discounted prices and undercut their compliant competitors.

The AG’s Office also took issue with Prime Source Foods’ marketing strategy, alleging that it misled consumers by advertising its products as “all natural,” when in reality, the animals were “raised in conditions that failed to accommodate natural behavior.” Similarly, the AG’s Office alleged that it was improper to sell noncompliant food products under the name Prime Source Foods when “the source of such foods was not of the highest quality or value and was instead wholly unacceptable under Massachusetts law.”

As part of the settlement, the companies agreed to pay approximately $495,000 to the Commonwealth. They further agreed to refrain from marketing and selling noncompliant animal products in the future, and to ensure that future advertisements do not mislead consumers. However, the companies did not admit to any of the alleged violations of the Act or Chapter 93A.

This settlement demonstrates that the Act is not just a concern for Massachusetts farms, but all businesses that sell animal products in Massachusetts. Businesses must do their due diligence when sourcing animal products, and ensure that the out-of-state farms that they rely on do not confine animals in a manner that would be unlawful in Massachusetts. Moreover, businesses could face additional exposure under Chapter 93A because conduct violating the Act may independently qualify as an unfair or deceptive business practice. The Act has real teeth, and the AG’s Office is clearly willing to enforce it.

Notably, this is the first high-profile enforcement action under the Act, despite it being approved by voters 10 years ago in 2016. Since its inception, the Act has faced numerous legal challenges on the basis that it violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. Opponents argue, inter alia, that the Act discriminates against out-of-state farms and impermissibly regulates how other states raise their farm animals. See, e.g., Triumph Foods, LLC v. Campbell, 156 F.4th 29, 43-50 (1st Cir. 2025). Indeed, out-of-state farms must comply with the Act if they wish to sell their products in Massachusetts. Given these pending legal challenges, it is not surprising that enforcement of the Act has been delayed.

In 2025, however, the First Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Act in Triumph Foods, LLC v. Campbell. There, out-of-state pork producers argued that the Act favored Massachusetts farms and sought to protect animals outside of Massachusetts. Id. at 44. The court rejected these arguments, reasoning that even if the Act protects farm animals in other states, its restrictions do not benefit in-state farms over out-of-state farms. Id. Because “[b]oth Massachusetts and out-of-state producers must abide by the same regulations . . . the Massachusetts Act does not favor local groups over similarly situated out-of-Commonwealth farmers or producers.” Id. at 48.

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of Triumph Foods—the same day that the AG’s Office filed its Assurance of Discontinuance memorializing the settlement with Prime Source Foods. Now that the Act has been held constitutional, the settlement may mark the beginning of more active enforcement by the AG’s Office. Farms, distributors, and food sellers should carefully review their sourcing and marketing practices to ensure that they comply with the Act.