7.1 First Amendment protection for commercial speech
5 min read•august 15, 2024
, which promotes products or services, has gained protection over time. The Supreme Court's stance shifted in the 1970s, recognizing its value in informing consumers and fostering competition.
The Central Hudson test, established in 1980, balances government interests with businesses' rights. It evaluates if speech is lawful and not misleading, if regulation serves a substantial interest, and if it's appropriately tailored.
First Amendment Protection for Commercial Speech
Historical Development of Commercial Speech Protection
Top images from around the web for Historical Development of Commercial Speech Protection
American Government 2013-2014 - The Collaboratory View original
Is this image relevant?
The Supreme Court | American Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original
Is this image relevant?
American Government 2013-2014 - The Collaboratory View original
Is this image relevant?
The Supreme Court | American Government View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Historical Development of Commercial Speech Protection
American Government 2013-2014 - The Collaboratory View original
Is this image relevant?
The Supreme Court | American Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original
Is this image relevant?
American Government 2013-2014 - The Collaboratory View original
Is this image relevant?
The Supreme Court | American Government View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, including commercial speech, which is defined as speech that proposes a commercial transaction or promotes a product or service
- In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court held that commercial speech was not protected by the First Amendment (Valentine v. Chrestensen, 1942)
- The Court's stance on commercial speech began to shift in the 1970s, particularly with the case of Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976), which recognized that commercial speech deserves some First Amendment protection
- The Court reasoned that commercial speech can provide valuable information to consumers (drug prices) and contribute to the free flow of ideas in the marketplace
- However, the Court also acknowledged that commercial speech may be subject to greater regulation than other forms of speech due to its potential to mislead or deceive consumers
Rationale for Protecting Commercial Speech
- Commercial speech can inform consumers about products, services, and prices, enabling them to make more informed decisions in the marketplace
- Protecting commercial speech promotes the free flow of information and ideas, which is essential to a functioning democracy and a free market economy
- Allowing businesses to advertise their products and services helps foster competition, innovation, and economic growth
- The First Amendment's protection of commercial speech helps prevent government overreach and censorship in the marketplace of ideas
Central Hudson Test for Commercial Speech
Overview of the Central Hudson Test
- In (1980), the Supreme Court established a four-part test for determining the constitutionality of commercial speech regulations
- The Central Hudson test seeks to balance the government's interest in protecting consumers and the public with the First Amendment rights of businesses to engage in commercial speech
- The test has been applied to various commercial speech regulations, such as restrictions on for tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs
Four Prongs of the Central Hudson Test
- The speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading
- The government's interest in regulating the speech must be substantial
- The regulation must directly advance the government's interest
- The regulation must be no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest
Criticisms of the Central Hudson Test
- The test has been criticized for being too lenient on and failing to provide sufficient protection for commercial speech
- Some argue that the test's fourth prong, which requires regulations to be no more extensive than necessary, is too vague and allows for overly broad restrictions on speech
- Others contend that the test does not adequately account for the value of commercial speech in informing consumers and promoting competition
Limitations on Commercial Speech Protection
Unprotected Categories of Commercial Speech
- False or misleading commercial speech, such as deceptive advertising, is not protected by the First Amendment and may be prohibited by the government
- Commercial speech related to illegal activities, such as the promotion of illegal drugs, is also not protected by the First Amendment
Permissible Government Regulations on Commercial Speech
- The government may impose disclosure requirements on commercial speech, such as mandating that advertisers include certain information (health warnings) or warnings (side effects) in their messages
- Commercial speech may be subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, such as limitations on billboards or restrictions on advertising in certain media outlets (television, radio)
- The Court has upheld regulations on commercial speech that target specific industries or products, such as tobacco and alcohol, due to the government's interest in protecting public health and safety
Balancing Free Speech and Government Interests
- The limitations on commercial speech protection demonstrate the ongoing tension between the First Amendment rights of businesses and the government's responsibility to protect consumers and the public
- Courts must carefully weigh the competing interests in each case to determine whether a particular regulation on commercial speech is justified and constitutional
- The line between permissible regulation and unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech continues to evolve as new cases and issues arise
Supreme Court Decisions on Commercial Speech
Recent Decisions Expanding Commercial Speech Protection
- In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued several decisions that have expanded First Amendment protection for commercial speech and made it more difficult for the government to regulate such speech
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011): The Court struck down a Vermont law that restricted the sale and use of prescription drug data for marketing purposes, holding that the law unconstitutionally burdened commercial speech
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015): The Court held that content-based restrictions on speech, including commercial speech, are subject to , the highest level of constitutional review
- National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018): The Court struck down a California law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to provide certain disclosures, holding that the law compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment
Implications and Concerns
- These decisions have raised concerns among some commentators that the Court is prioritizing commercial speech over other important government interests, such as consumer protection and public health
- The implications of these decisions may make it more challenging for governments to regulate commercial speech in industries such as tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceuticals, where there are significant public health concerns
- Critics argue that the Court's expanding protection of commercial speech could lead to a proliferation of false or , making it harder for consumers to make informed decisions
- Supporters of the Court's decisions argue that robust protection for commercial speech is essential to maintaining a free market economy and preventing government overreach in the marketplace of ideas
Key Terms to Review (18)
Advertising: Advertising is a marketing communication strategy used to promote products, services, or ideas to a target audience through various media channels. It plays a crucial role in influencing consumer behavior and driving sales by creating awareness and generating interest in offerings. Understanding how advertising interacts with legal frameworks, especially concerning free speech rights, is essential for navigating the complexities of commercial messaging.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1980 that established a four-part test for determining when regulations on commercial speech violate the First Amendment. This decision clarified the scope of First Amendment protections for commercial speech and set a significant precedent for future cases regarding the regulation of advertising and promotional materials in the context of free speech rights.
Commercial free speech doctrine: The commercial free speech doctrine is a legal principle that recognizes a degree of First Amendment protection for commercial speech, which refers to expressions that propose a commercial transaction. This doctrine balances the government's interest in regulating commercial speech to prevent misleading advertising and the public's right to receive truthful information about products and services. The courts have established standards for evaluating when commercial speech is protected, often considering the message's content and its potential impact on consumers.
Commercial speech: Commercial speech refers to any type of communication that promotes or advertises a product, service, or business. It is primarily intended to generate a profit and is subject to different regulations compared to non-commercial speech. While commercial speech enjoys some protection under the First Amendment, it can be regulated more strictly to prevent false or misleading information and to promote public interest.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is a U.S. government agency established in 1914 to protect consumers and maintain competition by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices. It plays a critical role in regulating advertising practices, ensuring that commercial speech is truthful and not misleading, which intersects with various aspects of media law and policy.
First Amendment: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects fundamental rights related to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It serves as a cornerstone for democratic governance and the protection of individual liberties in society, ensuring that citizens can express their thoughts and ideas without fear of government censorship or retaliation.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA): The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a federal agency responsible for protecting public health by regulating food safety, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and cosmetics. It plays a crucial role in overseeing the marketing of products that fall under its jurisdiction, ensuring that claims made in advertising are truthful and not misleading, which is especially important for commercial speech.
Government regulation: Government regulation refers to the authoritative rules and laws established by government bodies to control or manage specific activities, especially in areas like commerce and public welfare. In the context of commercial speech, these regulations are crucial for balancing free expression with consumer protection, ensuring that advertisements and promotional content are truthful and not misleading.
Intermediate scrutiny: Intermediate scrutiny is a standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate laws or government actions that affect constitutional rights, particularly those involving discrimination based on gender or legitimacy. This level of scrutiny requires the government to show that its actions serve an important governmental objective and are substantially related to achieving that objective, providing a balance between the strict scrutiny and rational basis tests.
Misleading advertising: Misleading advertising refers to promotional messages that deceive or mislead consumers regarding the nature, characteristics, or benefits of a product or service. This form of advertising raises significant concerns as it can manipulate consumer choices and harm vulnerable populations, making it critical to balance the protection of consumers with the rights of advertisers under commercial speech protections.
Promotional materials: Promotional materials are resources and tools used to advertise or market a product, service, or brand. These materials can take many forms, including brochures, flyers, posters, digital ads, and videos, all aimed at engaging potential customers and driving sales. In the context of commercial speech, the First Amendment offers some protection to promotional materials, but this protection is not absolute and may be subject to certain regulations and restrictions.
Protected Speech: Protected speech refers to expressions that are safeguarded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, meaning the government cannot censor or penalize individuals for their speech unless it falls into certain unprotected categories. This concept is essential in maintaining the balance between free expression and the need for regulation, particularly regarding different types of speech, including political, artistic, and commercial expressions. Understanding what constitutes protected speech helps delineate the boundaries of free speech in various contexts, including commercial communications.
Puffery: Puffery is a legal term that refers to exaggerated or hyperbolic claims made in advertising that are not meant to be taken literally. This practice allows advertisers to promote their products using subjective statements of opinion rather than objective facts, which means these claims typically do not have legal consequences. Puffery often plays a crucial role in how companies market themselves, especially when appealing to emotions rather than providing concrete evidence of product efficacy.
Strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review used by courts when evaluating laws or government actions that infringe upon fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications, such as race or religion. Under this standard, the government must demonstrate that its action serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, making it a crucial concept in analyzing issues like prior restraint and the protection of commercial speech.
Substantial governmental interest: Substantial governmental interest refers to a legitimate and significant reason that justifies government regulation or restrictions on certain types of expression, particularly in relation to commercial speech. This concept plays a crucial role in determining the balance between the First Amendment rights of individuals and the government's responsibility to protect public welfare, consumer interests, and other societal values.
Truthful information: Truthful information refers to accurate, reliable, and honest communication that presents facts without distortion or misleading implications. In the context of commercial speech, truthful information is vital because it helps consumers make informed decisions, protects the integrity of the marketplace, and is essential for maintaining trust in advertising and marketing practices.
Unprotected speech: Unprotected speech refers to types of expression that do not receive First Amendment protection, meaning the government can regulate or restrict them without violating free speech rights. This category typically includes obscenity, defamation, fighting words, and incitement to imminent lawless action. Understanding unprotected speech is crucial as it helps define the limits of free expression and the balance between individual rights and societal interests.
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council: Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1976 that established that commercial speech, including advertising for prescription drugs, is protected by the First Amendment. The ruling recognized the importance of providing consumers with information about products, which in this case was the pricing of prescription medications, and set a precedent for future cases involving commercial speech.