Law Commons^™

Speech Regulation And Tobacco Harm Reduction, Jonathan Adler, Jacob James Rich

Faculty Publications

Regulation of commercial speech is a major component of federal regulation of tobacco products. Since adoption of federal tobacco legislation, the Food and Drug Administration has asserted regulatory authority over ENDS and other vaping products as “tobacco products,” subjecting them to the same regulatory regime as traditional tobacco products even though such projects appear to pose less of a threat to public health. Such regulation, and the restriction on truthful speech in particular, may be having negative consequences for public health. Barring producers from informing consumers about the relative risks of vaping products and their potential to reduce smoking eliminates …

Professional Speech At Scale, Cassandra Burke Robertson, Sharona Hoffman

Faculty Publications

Regulatory actions affecting professional speech are facing new challenges from all sides. On one side, the Supreme Court has grown increasingly protective of professionals’ free speech rights, and it has subjected regulations affecting that speech to heightened levels of scrutiny that call into question traditional regulatory practices in both law and medicine. On the other side, technological developments, including the growth of massive digital platforms and the introduction of artificial intelligence programs, have created brand new problems of regulatory scale. Professional speech is now able to reach a wide audience faster than ever before, creating risks that misinformation will cause …

Professional Speech At Scale, Cassandra Burke Robertson, Sharona Hoffman

Faculty Publications

Regulatory actions affecting professional speech are facing new challenges from all sides. On one side, the Supreme Court has grown increasingly protective of professionals’ free speech rights, and it has subjected regulations affecting that speech to heightened levels of scrutiny that call into question traditional regulatory practices in both law and medicine. On the other side, technological developments, including the growth of massive digital platforms and the introduction of artificial intelligence programs, have created brand new problems of regulatory scale. Professional speech is now able to reach a wide audience faster than ever before, creating risks that misinformation will cause …

Freedom Of Thought In The United States: The First Amendment, Marketplaces Of Ideas, And The Internet, John G. Francis, Leslie Francis

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Freedom of thought is not directly protected as a right in the United States. Instead, US First Amendment law protects a range of rights that may allow thoughts to be expressed. Freedom of speech has been granted especially robust protection. US courts have extended this protection to a wide range of commercial activities judged to have expressive content. In protecting these rights, US jurisprudence frequently relies on the image of the marketplace of ideas as furthering the search for truth. This commercial image, however, has increasingly detached expressive rights from the understanding of freedom of thought as a critical forum …

There And Back: Vindicating The Listener's Interests In Targeted Advertising In The Internet Information Economy, Caitlin Jokubaitis

Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts

Targeted advertising — the process by which advertisers direct their message at a specific demographic — is neither a recent1 nor an irrational phenomenon.2 One industry executive has proclaimed it the “rare win for everyone” because it serves producers, advertisers, and consumers alike. It should be no surprise that the Information sector of the online economy — particularly new and social media platforms with robust access to consumer data — has structured revenue streams to benefit from targeted advertising. These platforms generate “substantially all of [their] revenue from advertising,” which in turn rely on active user engagement.

The Internet Information …

Speech, Innovation, And Competition, Greg Day

Scholarly Works

Critics contend that concentrated power in digital markets has generated threats to free speech. For a variety of reasons, market power is naturally thought to concentrate in digital markets. The consequence is that “big tech” is said to face little competition; Facebook controls 72 percent of the social media market while the parent of YouTube (72 percent of the video market) is Google (92 percent of the search market). This landscape has potentially vested private companies with unprecedented power over the flow of information. If Facebook, for example, decides to ban certain types of speech or ideas, it would potentially …

Powerful Speakers And Their Listeners, Helen Norton

Publications

In certain settings, law sometimes puts listeners first when their First Amendment interests collide with speakers’. And collide they often do. Sometimes speakers prefer to tell lies when their listeners thirst for the truth. Sometimes listeners hope that speakers will reveal their secrets, while those speakers resist disclosure. And at still other times, speakers seek to address certain listeners when those listeners long to be left alone. When speakers’ and listeners’ First Amendment interests collide, whose interests should prevail? Law sometimes – but not always – puts listeners’ interests first in settings outside of public discourse where those listeners have …

Corporate Governance Beyond Economics, Elizabeth Pollman

All Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, changes to state and federal law have increased pressure on corporate law to serve as an ordering mechanism for interests and values beyond economics. On the federal front, two U.S. Supreme Court cases have put existing corporate law in a new quasi-constitutional light. In the landmark decisions of Citizens United v. FEC and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court has pointed to state corporate law as the mechanism for ordering political and religious activity. In addition, Congress, the SEC, and federal courts have been embroiled in battles about the scope and appropriateness of regulating …

Is The First Amendment Obsolete?, Tim Wu

Faculty Scholarship

The First Amendment was brought to life in a period, the twentieth century, when the political speech environment was markedly different than today’s. With respect to any given issue, speech was scarce and limited to a few newspapers, pamphlets or magazines. The law was embedded, therefore, with the presumption that the greatest threat to free speech was direct punishment of speakers by government.

Today, in the internet and social media age, it is no longer speech that is scarce – rather, it is the attention of listeners. And those who seek to control speech use new methods that rely on …

Tip Of The Iceberg Ii: How The Intended-Uses Principle Produces Medical Knowledge And Protects Liberty, Christopher Robertson

Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, the Food and Drug Administration’s pre-market approval process has come under increasing scrutiny as an infringement on liberty and a regulation of speech. In the first part of this symposium contribution, we offer a case study of Seroquel XR, showing how the FDA’s premarket approval process – and the restrictions on “off-label” promotion in particular – caused the drug company to produce and disseminate knowledge about safety and efficacy for new uses. The law successfully resolved the collective action problem of producing knowledge, even while the law protected the liberty of individual doctors and patients to use …

The Tip Of The Iceberg: A First Amendment Right To Promote Drugs Off-Label, Christopher Robertson

Faculty Scholarship

Scholars, advocates, and courts have begun to recognize a First Amendment right for the makers of drugs and medical devices to promote their products “off-label,” without proving safety and efficacy of new intended uses. Yet, so far, this debate has occurred in a vacuum of peculiar cases, where convoluted commercial speech doctrine underdetermines the outcome. Juxtaposing these cases against other routine prosecutions of those who peddle unapproved drugs reveals the common legal regime at issue. Review of the seven arguments deployed in the off-label domain finds that, if they were valid, they would undermine the FDA’s entire premarket approval regime. …

Speech V. Conduct, Surcharges V. Discounts: Testing The Limits Of The First Amendment And Statutory Construction In The Growing Credit Card Quagmire, Clay Calvert, Rich Shumate, Stephanie Mcneff, Stephenson Waters

UF Law Faculty Publications

This article examines First Amendment speech concerns and related issues of statutory construction raised by anti-surcharge statutes that prohibit merchants from imposing "surcharges" on credit card purchases, but allow them to offer "discounts" to cash-paying customers. The article uses the split of authority created by the November 2015 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Dana's Railroad Supply v. Florida and the September 2015 decision by the Second Circuit in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman as a timely springboard for analyzing these issues. In September 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Expressions Hair …

Regulating Off-Label Promotion — A Critical Test, Christopher Robertson, Aaron S. Kesselheim

Faculty Scholarship

In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down a landmark decision in the case of pharmaceutical sales representative Alfred Caronia. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved sodium oxybate (Xyrem) for treating narcolepsy, but Caronia promoted it for a wide range of nonapproved (off-label) indications, including insomnia, Parkinson’s disease, and fibromyalgia. Off-label use is common, especially in specialties such as oncology, in which it may even be considered the standard of care. However, surveys have revealed that supporting evidence is lacking for a majority of off-label uses of medical products.1 The uses Caronia …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet

Court Briefs

The District Court correctly determined that the challenged speech of Dr. Steven Novella was not commercial speech for purposes of applying the Lanham Act. Appellant’s argument to the contrary conflates “seeking profit” with “commercial speech.”

Truth And Lies In The Workplace: Employer Speech And The First Amendment, Helen Norton

Publications

Employers' lies, misrepresentations, and nondisclosures about workers' legal rights and other working conditions can skew and sometimes even coerce workers' important life decisions as well as frustrate key workplace protections. Federal, state, and local governments have long sought to address these substantial harms by prohibiting employers from misrepresenting workers' rights or other working conditions as well as by requiring employers to disclose truthful information about these matters.

These governmental efforts, however, are now increasingly vulnerable to constitutional attack in light of the recent antiregulatory turn in First Amendment law, in which corporate and other commercial entities seek -- with growing …

Underinclusivity And The First Amendment: The Legislative Right To Nibble At Problems After Williams-Yulee, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

Using the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 opinion in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar as an analytical springboard, this Article examines the slipperiness — and sometimes fatalness — of the underinclusiveness doctrine in First Amendment free-speech jurisprudence. The doctrine allows lawmakers, at least in some instances, to take incremental, step-by-step measures to address harms caused by speech, rather than requiring an all-out, blanket-coverage approach. Yet, if the legislative tack taken is too small to ameliorate the harm that animates a state’s alleged regulatory interest, it could doom the statute for failing to directly advance it. In brief, the doctrine of underinclusivity requires …

How Do We Know When Speech Is Of Low Value?, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Commercial Speech, Commercial Use, And The Intellectual Property Quagmire, Jennifer E. Rothman

All Faculty Scholarship

The commercial speech doctrine in First Amendment jurisprudence has frequently been criticized and is recognized as a highly contested, problematic and shifting landscape. Despite the compelling critique within constitutional law scholarship more broadly, Intellectual Property (“IP”) law has not only embraced the differential treatment of commercial speech, but has done so in ways that disfavor a much broader swath of speech than traditional commercial speech doctrine allows. One of the challenges for courts, litigants, and scholars alike is that the term “commercial” is used to mean multiple things, even within the same body of IP law. In this Article, I …

Compelled Commercial Speech As Compelled Consent Speech, Leslie Gielow Jacobs

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Do Graphic Tobacco Warnings Violate The First Amendment?, Nathan Cortez

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

When Congress passed the nation’s first comprehensive tobacco bill in 2009, it replaced the familiar Surgeon General’s warnings, last updated in 1984, with nine blunter warnings. The law also directed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') to require color graphics to accompany the textual warnings. By law, the warnings would cover the top fifty percent of the front and back of tobacco packaging and the top twenty percent of print advertisements, bringing the United States closer to many peer countries that now require graphic warnings. Tobacco companies challenged the requirement on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the compelled disclosures …

Machine Speech, Tim Wu

Faculty Scholarship

Computers are making an increasing number of important decisions in our lives. They fly airplanes, navigate traffic, and even recommend books. In the process, computers reason through automated algorithms and constantly send and receive information, sometimes in ways that mimic human expression. When can such communications, called here “algorithmic outputs,” claim First Amendment protection?

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General Of Vermont, Et Al. V. Ims Health Inc., Et Al. - Amicus Brief In Support Of Petitioners, Kevin Outterson, David Orentlicher, Christopher T. Robertson, Frank A. Pasquale

Faculty Scholarship

On April 26, 2011, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Vermont data mining case, Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. Respondents claim this is the most important commercial speech case in a decade. Petitioner (the State of Vermont) argues this is the most important medical privacy case since Whalen v. Roe.

The is an amicus brief supporting Vermont, written by law professors and submitted on behalf of the New England Journal of Medicine

Can Speech By Fda-Regulated Firms Ever Be Noncommercial?, Nathan Cortez

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This Article considers whether speech by pharmaceutical, medical device, and other FDA-regulated companies can ever be noncommercial and thus subject to heightened protection under the First Amendment. Since the U.S. Supreme Court first recognized a right to commercial speech in 1976, there have been 24 published federal judicial opinions in which an FDA-regulated firm has argued that its speech was protected. Courts have categorized the speech as commercial in all but two cases, neither of which involved FDA rules or enforcement.

I examine the tests and factors courts claim they use when making this threshold distinction, then identify the various …

Fighting Freestyle: The First Amendment, Fairness, And Corporate Reputation, Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

There are three distinct groups who might want to engage in speech about commercial entities or to constrain those commercial entities from making particular claims of their own. Competitors may sue each other for false advertising, consumers may sue businesses, and government regulators may impose requirements on what businesses must and may not say. In this context, this Article will evaluate a facially persuasive but ultimately misguided claim about corporate speech: that because consumers regularly get to say nasty things about corporations under the lax standards governing defamation of public figures, corporations must be free to make factual claims subject …

Selective Ban Of Street Signs Metro Lights, Llc V City Of Los Angeles (9th Cir 2009), Roger Bernhardt

Publications

This article discusses a Ninth Circuit case involving commercial speech and asks whether selective protection can be challenged under the Fifth Amendment.

The First Amendment And Commercial Speech, C. Edwin Baker

All Faculty Scholarship

After a quick summary of constitutional treatment of commercial speech, this essay outlines four reasons why commercial speech should be denied First Amendment protection. Working from the claim that the primary rationale for constitutional protection of speech is the mandate that government respect individual freedom or autonomy, the essay argues: 1) that the individual does not choose, but rather the market dictates the content of commercial speech; 2) that the commercial speech should be attributed to an artificial, instrumentally entity – the business enterprise – rather than the flesh and blood person whose liberty merits protection; 3) market exchanges involve …

Commercial Speech, First Amendment Intuitionism And The Twilight Zone Of Viewpoint Discrimination, Martin H. Redish

Faculty Working Papers

In this article, I seek to demonstrate that arguments made by scholars against First Amendment protection for commercial speech may be divided into three categories: (1) rationalist, (2) intuitionist, and (3) ideological. I argue that all three forms of opposition to commercial speech protection suffer, either directly or indirectly, from the same fundamental flaw: each constitutes or at the very least facilitates creation of a constitutionally destructive form of viewpoint discrimination. I show that all of the specific rationales for opposing First Amendment protection for commercial speech are fatally and illogically underinclusive: In each case the justification asserted to support …

Mixed Speech: When Speech Is Both Private And Governmental, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

Speech is generally considered to be either private or governmental, and this dichotomy is embedded in First Amendment jurisprudence. However, speech is often neither purely private nor purely governmental but rather a combination of the two. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has not yet recognized mixed speech as a distinct category of speech. This Article suggests considerations for identifying mixed speech and exposes the shortcomings of the current approach of classifying all speech as either private or governmental when determining whether viewpoint restrictions pass First Amendment muster. Treating mixed speech as government speech gives short shrift to the free speech interests …

Thoughts On Commercial Speech: A Roundtable Discussion, Ronald K.L. Collins, Steven H. Shiffrin, Erwin Chemerinsky, Kathleen M. Sullivan

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Adam Liptak, the legal affairs writer for The New York Times, moderates a lively discussion about commercial speech between three esteemed constitutional scholars: Professor Erwin Chemerinsky of Duke University School of Law; Professor Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law School; and Professor Steve Shiffrin of Cornell Law School. These scholars debate the proper definition of defining commercial speech, how the corporate identity of a speaker and the content of the speech determines the level of First Amendment protection, whether it is possible to demarcate commercial speech from political speech, and the problems of paternalism and viewpoint discrimination in this complex and …

Medium-Specific Regulation Of Attorney Advertising: A Critique, Lyrissa Lidsky, Tera Peterson

Faculty Publications

Florida has been one of the most aggressive states in regulating attorney advertising. The Florida Supreme Court recently adopted new and more stringent rules regulating broadcast advertising by attorneys, and the court appears poised to adopt new and more stringent rules governing Internet advertising by attorneys. As this Article details, the problem is that Florida's new and proposed rules violate both the First Amendment and sound public policy principles. This Article provides guidance to states contemplating further regulation of attorney advertising, and it indirectly critiques current commercial speech doctrine.