Chris Micheli, a California lobbyist and adjunct professor of law at McGeorge School of Law, said Flynn likely would have had a good case had he chose to challenge the Newsom administration’s interpretation of the law. The law defines what a fast-food restaurant is, and says it is not an establishment that “operates a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread.”
The law goes on to say the exemption only applies “where the establishment produces for sale bread as a stand-alone menu item, and does not apply if the bread is available for sale solely as part of another menu item.”
“On its face it appears that it would be applicable, however a court might have to determine what is included in the word ‘produce’ in order for the exemption to apply,” Micheli said.