Brian Delaporte Nike Inc. v. Kasky 2002 Cal.

Lexis 2591 VOTE: Previously granted writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. OPINIONS: Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins and with whom Justice Souter joins as to Part III, concurring. Justice Kennedy, dissenting. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice OConner joins, dissenting. FACTS: Beginning in 1996, Nike, a brand and manufacturer of both shoes and athletic apparel, was criticized for its working conditions under which Nike products were made in its overseas factories. Nike responded to the criticism of its working conditions in forms of press releases, letters to the editors of various newspapers, and other corporate messages which further addressed the allegations. In April 1998, California resident Marc Kasky sued Nike for unfair and deceptive practices under Californias Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. Kasky claimed Nike had made a number of false statements and omissions of fact concerning the working conditions under which Nike products were manufactured. Kasky alleged no harm or damages regarding himself individually, only emphasizing the disputed truthfulness of the companys statements in regard to the issue at hand. Nike filed a demurrer to the complaint and it was sustained. A California appellate court held that Nikes statements were protected under the First Amendment and were not commercial speech. DECISION: Upon appeal the California Supreme Court reversed the ruling, holding for Nike that Nikes messages were in fact commercial speech because they were directed at customers who might continue to buy Nike products if they believed Nikes statements were to be true. The case was remanded, and eventually granted a writ of certiorari. RATIONALE: The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case for three primary reasons, of which some justices concurred with, while others dissented with. The first being that an opinion on the facts in this case could take many different paths, so it is unclear whether reversal of the California Supreme Court would "be preclusive of any further litigation on the relevant cause of action [in] the state proceedings still to come. It was also unclear that reaching the merits of Nike's claims now would serve the goal of judicial efficiency in the future. Secondly, neither party had standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and therefore the Court could not hear Nikes claims. The Court could not hear Kaskys claims for the reason that he sought out to enforce two California statues on behalf of the general public of the state itself, without alleging that any harm was done to him in the first place. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed this case because of the difficult First Amendment questions that came into play. The speech at issue in this case represents a blending of commercial speech, noncommercial speech and debate on an issue of public importance. The justices of the Court could not agree on these issues of speech, therefore the case had to be dismissed. IMPORTANCE: The dismissal of this case reveals that the distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech is still unclear. First Amendment protections still rest on the nature and source of the message or speech in question. This case establishes that editorial or idea advertising still garners more constitutional protection than that of more traditional forms of commercial advertising.