During the past 15 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has used Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission (1980) to expand significantly the power of the government at all levels to regulate advertising and other promotional activities. As a result, first amendment protection for commercial speech has steadily diminished. In this article, Supreme Court decisions subsequent to Central Hudson are reviewed to provide an update of Cohen's (1978) work. In addition, the current standard for identifying commercial speech is analyzed, and managerial recommendations are made to guide managers who are responsible for making promotional decisions in this increasingly restricted area.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adolph Coors Company v. Bentsen (1993), 2 F.2d 355 (10th Cir.); 944 F.2d 1543 (10th Cir. 1991).
2.
Amateur Sports Act (1978), United States Code, v. 36, §380.
3.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and Penn Advertising of Baltimore, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (1994), Civ. Nos. HAR 94–117, HAR 94–145, slip op., 1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5130 (March 28, D. My.).
4.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691.
5.
Bigelow v. Virginia (1975), 421 U.S. 809, 95 S.Ct. 2222.
6.
BlimJohn M (1994), “Free Speech and Health Claims Under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990: Applying a Rehabilitated Central Hudson Test for Commercial Speech,”Northwestern University Law Review, 88(Winter), 733–68.
7.
Board of Trustees of the State University of New York v. Fox (1989), 492 U.S. 469, 109 S.Ct. 3028.
8.
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. (1983), 463 U.S. 60, 103 S.Ct. 2875.
9.
Boos v. Barry (1988), 485 U.S. 312, 108 S.Ct. 1157.
10.
Breard v. Alexandria (1951), 341 U.S. 622, 71 S.Ct. 920.
11.
CainRita Marie (1994), “Call Up Someone and Just Say ‘Buy’—Telemarketing and the Regulatory Environment,”American Business Law Journal, 31(February), 641–98.
12.
CalfeeJohn E., and PappalardoJanis K. (1991), “Public Policy Issues in Health Claims for Foods,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(Spring), 33–53.
13.
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), 318 U.S. 413, 63 S.Ct. 669.
14.
Carey, Governor of New York v. Population Services International (1977), 431 U.S. 678, 97 S.Ct. 2010.
15.
woodCay, ClarkeL., and PrestonIvan L. (1989), “The Continuing Debate on Political Advertising: Toward a Jeopardy Theory of Political Advertising as Regulated Speech,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 8, 204–26.
16.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980), 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343.
17.
City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc. (1993), 1993 U.S. Lexis 2401, 113 S.Ct. 1505.
18.
City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994), No. 92–1856, slip op., 1994 U.S. Lexis 4448, 62 U.S.L.W. 4477 (June 13); off'd as modif'd, 986 F.2d 1180 (8th Cir. 1993); 774 F.Supp. 1564 (E.D. Mo. 1991); 774 F.Supp. 1559 (E.D. Mo. 1991).
19.
ClarkCharles S. (1991), “Advertising Under Attack,”CQ Researcher18(September), 658–80.
20.
CohenDorothy (1978), “Advertising & the First Amendment,”Journal of Marketing, 42(July), 59–68.
21.
CollinsRonald K.L., and SkoverDavid M. (1993a), “Commerce & Communication,”Texas Law Review, 71(March), 697–746.
22.
CollinsRonald K.L., and SkoverDavid M. (1993b), “The Psychology of First Amendment Scholarship: A Reply,”Texas Law Review, 71(March), 819–32.
23.
CutlerBob D., and MuehlingDarrel D. (1989), “Advocacy Advertising and the Boundaries of Commercial Speech,”Journal of Advertising, 18(September), 40–50.
24.
CutlerBob D., and MuehlingDarrel D. (1991), “Another Look at Advocacy Advertising and the Boundaries of Commercial Speech,”Journal of Advertising, 20(December), 49–52.
25.
DavisRalph D. (1994), “New Prohibitionism on Trial: Judicial Approval of Baltimore's Ad Ban Should Be Reversed,”Legal Backgrounder, 9 (April 29).
26.
DowdellStephen, and CrispensJonna (1991), “Industry Behind New Label Rules,”Supermarket News (November 11), 1.
27.
Edenfield v. Fane (1993), 1993 U.S. Lexis 2985, 113 S.Ct. 1792; 945 F.2d 1514 (1991 11th Cir.).
28.
ES Development, Inc. v. RWM Enterprises, Inc. (1991), 939 F.2d 547 (8th Cir.); cert, denied, 112 S.Ct. 1176 (1992).
29.
EstlundCynthia L. (1990), “Speech on Matters of Public Concern: The Perils of an Emerging First Amendment Category,”George Washington Law Review, 59(November), 1–55.
30.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts (1977), 435 U.S. 765, 98 S.Ct. 1407.
31.
Friedman v. Rogers (1979), 440 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 887.
32.
GarrisonMichael J. (1991), “The New ‘Improved’ Commercial Speech Doctrine: Constitutional Protection for the Dissemination of Commercial Information in the Renquist Era,” presented to the American Business Law Association.
33.
Gaudiya Vaishnava Society v. City and County of San Francisco (1991), 952 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir.); cert, denied, 112 S.Ct. 1951 (1992).
34.
Hays County Guardian v. Supple (1992), 969 F.2d 111 (5th Cir.); cert, denied, 113 S.Ct. 1067 (1993).
35.
HusniSamir (1991), “Straight Talk,”Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management (December 1), 2.
36.
Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy (1994), No. 93–639, slip op., 1994 U.S. Lexis 4443, 62 U.S.L.W. 4503 (June 13).
37.
In Re Primus (1978) 436 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 1893.
38.
In Re R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Inc. (1990), Federal Trade Commission, Docket No. 9206.
39.
In Re R.M.J. (1982), 455 U.S. 191, 102 S.Ct. 929.
40.
International Olympic Committee v. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. (1986), 789 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir.).
41.
Jamison v. Texas (1943), 318 U.S. 413, 63 S.Ct. 669.
42.
KozinskiAlex, and BannerStuart (1990), “Who's Afraid of Commercial Speech?”Virginia Law Review, 76(May), 627–53.
43.
KozinskiAlex, and BannerStuart (1993), “The Anti-History and Pre-History of Commercial Speech,”Texas Law Review, 71(March), 747–75.
44.
Lanham Act (1988), United States Code, v. 15, §42–43, §1051–1053.
45.
Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977), 431 U.S. 85, 97 S.Ct. 1614.
46.
Lovell v. Griffin (1938), 303 U.S. 444, 58 S.Ct. 666.
47.
MandelRichard P. (1994), “Regulation of Commercial Speech: Did the 1993 Supreme Court Decisions Clarify the Scope of First Amendment Protection?”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13(Spring), 159–62.
48.
Martin v. Struthers (1943), 319 U.S. 141, 63 S.Ct. 862.
49.
McGowanDavid F. (1990), “A Critical Analysis of Commercial Speech,”California Law Review, 78(March), 359–448.
50.
Messer v. City of Douglasville (1992), 975 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir.), cert, denied, 113 S.Ct. 2395 (1993).
51.
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981), 453 U.S. 490, 101 S.Ct. 2882.
52.
MiddletonKent R. (1991), “Advocacy Advertising, The First Amendment, and Competitive Advantage,”Journal of Advertising, 20(June), 77–81.
53.
Moser v. Federal Communications Commission (1993), 826 F.Supp. 360 (D. Ore.).
54.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943), 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870.
55.
NesgosNicholas (1988), “Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission: The Right to Hear in Corporate Negative and Affirmative Speech,”Cornell Law Review, 73 (July), 1080–1100.
56.
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710.
57.
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (1990), United States Code, v. 21, §343 (1988 and Supplement III, 1991).
58.
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978), 436 U.S. 447, 98 S.Ct. 1912.
59.
Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990), 496 U.S. 91, 110 S.Ct. 2281.
60.
PettyRoss (1993), “Advertising & the First Amendment: A Practical Test for Distinguishing Commercial Speech from Fully-Protected Speech,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(Fall), 170–77.
61.
Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986), 478 U.S. 328, 106 S.Ct. 2968.
62.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305.
63.
RadnerJennifer L. (1993), “Phone, Fax, and Frustration: Electronic Commercial Speech and Nuisance,”Emory Law Journal, 42(Winter), 359–417.
64.
RedishM.H. (1990), “Product Health Claims and the First Amendment: Scientific Expression and the Twilight Zone of Commercial Speech,”Vanderbilt Law Review, 43 (October), 1433–1460.
65.
San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987), 483 U.S. 522, 1076 S.Ct. 2971.
66.
Schneider v. State (1939), 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146.
67.
SchneiderKenneth C., and JohnsonJames C. (1992), “Professionalism and Ethical Standards Among Salespeople in a Deregulated Environment: A Case Study of the Trucking Industry,”Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 12(Winter), 33–44.
68.
Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988), 486 U.S. 466, 108 S.Ct. 1916.
69.
ShawSandy, and PearsonDurk (1994), “Speakeasies in a New Age of Prohibition,”Legal Backgrounder, 9(April 22).
70.
SmollaRodney A. (1993), “Information, Imagery, and the First Amendment: A Case for Expansive Protection of Commercial Speech,”Texas Law Review, 71(March), 777–804.
71.
Thomas v. Collins (1945), 323 U.S. 516, 65 S.Ct. 315.
72.
United States and Federal Communications Commission v. Edge Broadcasting Co. (1993), 1993 U.S. Lexis 4402, 113 S.Ct. 2696.
73.
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), 316 U.S. 52, 62 S.Ct. 920.
74.
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens’ Consumer Council, Inc. (1976), 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817.
75.
WadeBetsy (1992), “Practical Traveler: Where to Find No-Frills Facts,”New York Times (January 19), 5.3.
76.
WaldholzMichael (1992), “Johnson & Johnson's Retin-A Can Ease Problem of Liver Spots,”Wall Street Journal (February 6), B7.
