Tag Archives: first amendment

Commercial Speech and the First Amendment, NYC, June 3 (invitation)

Register at this link. From Yale Law School’s Abrams Institute for Freedom of Speech – The 4th Commercial Speech and Commercial Speech Conference COMMERCIAL SPEECH POST-NIFLA v. BECERRA: LEGITIMATE CHECK ON COMPELLED SPEECH OR WEAPONIZATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT? Panelists: Robert … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Commercial Speech and the First Amendment, NYC, June 3 (invitation)

Register at this link. From Yale Law School’s Abrams Institute for Freedom of Speech – The 4th Commercial Speech and Commercial Speech Conference COMMERCIAL SPEECH POST-NIFLA v. BECERRA: LEGITIMATE CHECK ON COMPELLED SPEECH OR WEAPONIZATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT? Panelists: Robert … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

“prevailing price” regs not unduly vague, but commercial speech doctrine may still defeat them

People v. Superior Court, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2019 WL 1615288, No. B292416 (Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2019) The Los Angeles City Attorney asserted claims under California consumer protection law against the real parties in interest, including J.C. Penney, alleging that … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Oklahoma’s Indian arts & crafts consumer protection law preempted by federal law

Fontenot v. Hunter, No. CIV-16-1339-G  (W.D. Okla. Mar. 28, 2019) Oklahoma’s American Indian Arts and Crafts Sales Act of 1974 was amended in 2016 to exclude from its definition of “American Indian” all persons but citizens or enrolled members of … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

En banc court again strikes down sugar-sweetened beverages warning, with divided and divisive reasoning

American Beverage Ass’ v. City & County of San Francisco, No. 16-16072 (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 2019) After the panel opinion striking down SF’s sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) disclosure was reheard by the en banc court in light of National Institute … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Honey Badger don’t care for different reasons: court fixes artistic relevance but still doubles down on transformativeness

Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc., No. 16-56715 (9th Cir. Nov. 20, 2018) Previous opinion discussed here; amicus brief that may have influenced the court to withdraw that opinion and put out a superseding one here. The court found a triable … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Cents and sensibility: NY Ct of Appeals weighs in on credit surcharge law

Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, — N.E.3d —-, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 07037, 2018 WL 5258853 (Oct. 23, 2018) GBL section 518 states: “No seller in any sales transaction may impose a surcharge on a holder who elects to use … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment