Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Consumer Protection Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Consumer Protection Law

Leave Me Alone! The Delicate Balance Of Privacy And Commercial Speech In The Evolving Do-Not-Call Registry, Andrew L. Sullivant Dec 2008

Leave Me Alone! The Delicate Balance Of Privacy And Commercial Speech In The Evolving Do-Not-Call Registry, Andrew L. Sullivant

Federal Communications Law Journal

In 2004, the Tenth Circuit held that although the newly enacted do-not-call registry restricted commercial speech, the restriction was narrowly tailored and thus fell within the bounds of the Constitution. Since that decision, the Federal Trade Commission has amended the do-not-call registry to abolish the provision that required individuals to re-register every five years, and in 2008, Congress passed the amendment. This Note argues that the five-year reregistration requirement is a substantial factor in the registry's narrow tailoring. By removing the requirement, questions as to the restriction's constitutionality reemerge.


Tercer Congreso Nacional De Organismos Públicos Autónomos, Bruno L. Costantini García Jun 2008

Tercer Congreso Nacional De Organismos Públicos Autónomos, Bruno L. Costantini García

Bruno L. Costantini García

Tercer Congreso Nacional de Organismos Públicos Autónomos

"Autonomía, Reforma Legislativa y Gasto Público"


Reassessing Turner And Litigating The Must-Carry Law Beyond A Facial Challenge, R. Matthew Warner Mar 2008

Reassessing Turner And Litigating The Must-Carry Law Beyond A Facial Challenge, R. Matthew Warner

Federal Communications Law Journal

In recent decades, the must-carry rules have had a troubled constitutional history. After two sets of rules were struck down by the D.C. Circuit for violating the First Amendment rights of both cable programmers and operators, Congress revised the must-carry rules in the 1992 Cable Act. In 1997, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined that the congressional must-carry law was facially constitutional. However, does the Turner II decision preclude further First Amendment challenges to the must-carry law? This Note argues that the answer is no and that the time is drawing near for new challenges.


Reflections On The Mirror Image Doctrine: Should The Federal Trade Commission Regulate False Advertising For Books Promising Wealth, Weight Loss, And Miraculous Cures?, Keith R. Fentonmiller Jan 2008

Reflections On The Mirror Image Doctrine: Should The Federal Trade Commission Regulate False Advertising For Books Promising Wealth, Weight Loss, And Miraculous Cures?, Keith R. Fentonmiller

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.


Limiting Federal Agency Preemption: Recommendations For A New Federalism Executive Order, William Funk, Thomas Mcgarity, Nina A. Mendelson, Sidney Shapiro, David Vladeck, Matthew Shudtz, James Goodwin Jan 2008

Limiting Federal Agency Preemption: Recommendations For A New Federalism Executive Order, William Funk, Thomas Mcgarity, Nina A. Mendelson, Sidney Shapiro, David Vladeck, Matthew Shudtz, James Goodwin

Other Publications

The structure of the U.S. Constitution reflects a profound respect for the principles of federalism and state sovereignty. These principles require the federal government to recognize and encourage opportunities for state and local governments to exercise their authority, especially in areas of traditional state concern such as the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. However, over the last six years there has been a coordinated Executive Branch effortto use the regulatory process to shield certain product manufacturers from state tort liability. The Food and Drug Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Consumer Product Safety Commission, …