| 8 |
Commercial Speech Digest |
UPDATE |
|
Justice Dept. Sues Tobacco Makers The Department of Justice has filed a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against the tobacco industry to recover money it claims the federal government spends annually to treat smoking-related medical problems. The suit, filed Sept. 22 in the U.S. District C ourt for the District of Columbia, targets seven major tobacco makers and two trade groups. The action could have ramifications for tobacco advertising. If the tobacco industry agrees to a settlement, terms could include a virtual ban on tobacco advertising. The lawsuit "threatens all legal businesses whose products may be controversial and disliked by the political establishment of the day," Philip Morris Cos. said in a statement. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument Dec. 1 on whether the FDA has authority to regulate tobacco products.
Mazda Motor of America will pay a record $4.05 million in civil penalties for allegedly violating a 1997 FTC order requiring it to disclose leasing terms clearly and conspicuously in its print and TV ads. The compnay also agreed to pay $1.2 million in fines and penalties to 24 states. In a separate action, the FTC settled charges with Castrol North America Inc. and Shell Chemical Co. alleging that they made deceptive advertising claims for motor oil and fuel additives. Claims that Castrol's Syntec Power System improves engine power and acceleration were false, as were claims about "laboratory tests," the FTC charged. The Castrol product contains a Shell additive. The companies will have to back future claims with "competent and reliable" scientific evidence.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld on Oct. 25 a provision of a New York City ordinance that bans tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of places frequented by children. But the court overturned another provision that allows only a "tombsto ne" sign outside a store entrance. That portion of the ordinance is preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, the court said. The Second Circuit remanded the case to a district court to consider the appellees' First Amendment claim .
A new federal anti-spam bill, the "Unsolicited Mail Act of 1999," would prohibit the sending of unsolicited commercial or "pandering" electronic messages unless the messages contained a conspicuous reply address. On the state level, a Slidell, La., company specializing in bulk e-mail advertising filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Louisiana anti-spam bill that took effect in August. Over Nite Letter Type contends in Fox v. Reed that the law violates the First Amendment and Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
An Alaska law forbidding the unauthorized use of the official state seal "for any advertising or commercial purpose" does not violate the First Amendment, a state appeals court has ruled. The state charged Scott Robart with violating the statute after h e refused to quit selling coins bearing the state seal. "Commercial use of the state seal is not protected speech," the court wrote in State v. Robart. |
CSD Editorial Board
Steven G. Brody, Esq.
Robert Corn-Revere, Esq.
P. Cameron DeVore, Esq.
David L. Hudson, Jr., Esq.
Daniel L. Jaffe
John Kamp
Paul McMasters
Prof. Robert M. O'Neil
Dr. Craig R. Smith
Daniel E. Troy, Esq.
John J. Walsh, Esq.
Prof. Harvey Zuckman |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Page | Home | Next Page |