§ 96.002.Liability

The cause of action, with three elements that must all be met.

A person is liable if: they disseminate in any manner information relating to a perishable food product to the public; they know the information is false; and the information states or implies that the product is not safe for consumption by the public.

Actual knowledge of falsity is required. Not recklessness, not negligence, not a failure to check — the defendant must have known the statement was false.

That is a demanding standard, and deliberately so. Statements about food safety are core protected speech, and a chapter reaching careless or mistaken claims would face an obvious constitutional problem.

"States or implies" reaches indirect assertions, so a defendant cannot avoid the section by insinuating rather than asserting.

"Not safe for consumption" is the specific subject. A false claim that a product is unpalatable, poor value, or badly produced is outside the chapter — the falsehood must be about safety.

The claimant is the producer, who recovers damages and any other appropriate relief arising from the dissemination. The open-ended relief clause allows injunctive remedies, which matter more than damages when the product is perishing.

The proof section then directs how falsity is assessed, and the marketing exclusion keeps organic and chemical-free labelling outside the chapter entirely.