Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Legal Action topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fairfield County Council authorizes law firm to pursue litigation over 'ultra-processed foods'

5809602 · September 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Fairfield County Council voted 6-0 to authorize a representation agreement with the law firm Gatson, Marion, Stubbs, Hunter & Swan, C.P.A., and to allow the firm to initiate legal proceedings regarding ultra-processed foods on behalf of county residents.

Fairfield County Council on Sept. 22 voted unanimously to authorize a representation agreement with the law firm of Gatson, Marion, Stubbs, Hunter & Swan, C.P.A., and to permit the firm to initiate legal proceedings regarding ultra-processed foods on behalf of Fairfield County residents.

The motion, offered during a post–executive-session motion, said, “I make a motion to authorize Fairfield County to execute the representation agreement with the law firm of Gatson, Marion, Stubbs, Hunter, and Swan, C. P. A, and authorize the law firm to initiate legal proceedings regarding ultra processed foods on behalf of the citizens of Fairfield County,” and was seconded before the council voted 6–0. The council chair called the vote and recorded the tally as unanimous.

Council members had gone into executive session earlier under the South Carolina statute that governs attorney–client privileged legal advice; the meeting minutes record that no action was taken while in executive session. After returning to open session, a council member moved for the representation agreement and the motion passed without recorded opposition.

The authorization directs the county to execute the representation agreement and authorizes the named law firm to begin legal action; the motion and subsequent vote do not specify a filing schedule, the legal theories to be advanced, or a budget for litigation. The transcript does not list which council member offered the motion by name, and no individual council member comments about strategy, costs, or timeline were recorded in the public portion of the meeting.

The council followed its vote with a motion to adjourn. No additional public testimony or staff reports about the litigation plan were included in the meeting record.