2. Commercial Speech

3. The Evolution of Protections for Commercial Speech Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) No protections for advertising Times v. Sullivan (1964) Protections for editorial advertisements Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) “..free flow of commercial information is indispensable”

4. Central Hudson Test from Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission of New York (1980) In deciding for Central Hudson, the Supreme Court put forward the following test to determine when the state may restrict advertising. 1.Whether the commercial speech is eligible (truthful, legal, and not misleading or deceptive). 2.Whether there is a substantial government interest. 3.Whether the restriction directly advances that government interest. 4.Whether the restriction is narrowly drawn. This test was applied in the case of Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986) to uphold a commonwealth ban on local advertising for gambling.

5. The Federal Regulation of Advertising SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 02–575 _________________ NIKE, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MARC KASKY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA [June 26, 2003] PER CURIAM.

6. The Federal Regulation of Advertising Federal Trade Commission (1914) And advertiser may be held liable when: 1.There is a representation or omission of information likely to mislead. 2.The representation or omission is material. 3.The representation or omission must likely mislead a reasonable consumer. 4.The representation or omission must be likely to cause harm.

7. The Federal Regulation of Advertising Federal Trade Commission: Actions Advisory Opinions Industry Guides Policy Statements Rulemaking (Trade Regulation Rules) (Substantiation)

8. The Federal Regulation of Advertising Federal Trade Commission: Remedies Consent Agreements Cease-and-Desist Orders Court Injunctions Civil Penalties Criminal Penalties