Exam 4 Flashcards
1
Q
“Glomar response”
A
Agency says it can’t confirm or deny existence of information.
2
Q
“Vaughn Index”
A
in denying information, an agency must (1) identify each document that was withheld and (2) say how release of information would harm the interest of the exemption.
3
Q
Redact
A
to edit or black out information in a document.
4
Q
Virtual representation
A
a doctrine where a non-party may be bound to the judgment in a previous case if certain factors are met.
OR: a rule that says a court decision can affect someone who wasn’t part of the case if their interests were represented by someone who was
5
Q
qui tam
A
primarily involving government whistleblowers where a private person brings a case on the government’s behalf and the person could recover some of the damages sought.
6
Q
What does the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) do?
A
Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement.
7
Q
Exemption 1 under FOIA:
A
National Security - information that could damage national defense or foreign policy.
8
Q
Exemption 2 under FOIA:
A
Agency rules and practices - documents related solely to internal personnel rules and practices.
9
Q
Exemption 3 under FOIA:
A
Statutory - applies to documents that Congress has declared in other statutes to be confidential (“catch-all”).
10
Q
Exemption 4 under FOIA:
A
Confidential business information - protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information that businesses submit to government agencies.
11
Q
Exemption 5 under FOIA:
A
Agency memoranda - exempts working documents circulated within agencies.
12
Q
Exemption 6 under FOIA:
A
Personnel, medical and similar files - such information would invade an individual’s privacy.
13
Q
Exemption 7 under FOIA:
A
Law enforcement investigations - prevents access to on-going investigations.
14
Q
Exemption 8 under FOIA:
A
Banking reports - protects financial reports and audit information.
15
Q
Exemption 9 under FOIA:
A
Information about wells - protects geological and geophysical information.
16
Q
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996
A
(1) required agencies to make it easier for the public to identify and access government records; (2) facilitated computerization of FOIA requests; and (3) reformed timetable and procedures for agencies to respond to. An electronic tracking system in 2007.
17
Q
Why was Data.gov created in 2009?
A
“to increase public access to high value, machine readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.”
18
Q
Problems with FOIA
A
- High court costs associated with getting information from the government.
- Legally sanctioned removal of information - redacting
- Certain agencies (FBI/CIA) have made concerted efforts to weaken the FOIA
- Glamorization of data
- Computerization of information has led to higher fees for access to information that was once free.
19
Q
What is the Federal Sunshine Act?
A
- This legislation was passed in 1976 and calls for federal agencies to meet in public.
- This act pertains to the same agencies that are subject to FOIA. This act has 10 exceptions which would allow “closed sessions.” Exemptions 1-9 are similar to those in the FOIA. Exemption 10 applies to portions addressing agency litigation/arbitration.
20
Q
What are Reporter’s Options to Illegal Closed Meetings
A
- You may file suit to prevent a closed meeting in federal district court.
- You may file suit to stop future closed meetings.
- You may sue for a copy of the transcript of the closed meeting, if suit is filed within 60 days of closed meeting.
- May sue the agency, but not the individuals involved in the illegal meeting.
21
Q
1974 Privacy Act
A
establishes a code of information practices that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies.
22
Q
Campus Security and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (The Clery Act)
A
notification of students of crimes on campus.
23
Q
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
A
prevent health professionals and institutions from revealing individuals’ person medical information.
24
Q
Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA)
A
a federal law that prohibits states from “knowing disclosure” of information obtained from the department of motor vehicle records without permission except under specific circumstances.
25
Zemel v. Rusk (1964)
Facts: A reporter wanted to go to Cuba in violation of a State Department travel ban.
Importance: The USSC ruled that the right to publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.
26
EPA v. Mink (1973)
Facts: Representative Patsy Mink requested access to classified documents used to decide the issue of nuclear testing in Alaska.
Importance: The USSC rejected Representative Mink’s request. This decision motivated Congress to amend FOIA to allow court review of classified documents, e.g., “in camera.”
27
U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
Facts: President Richard Nixon went to court to prevent the release of secret White House tapes to a special prosecutor investigating Watergate.
Importance: The USSC ruled that executive privilege can be asserted only when the material in question consists of military or diplomatic secrets.
28
Department of the Air Force v. Rose (1976)
Facts: A law review editor requested information on the Air Force Academy internal discipline council. Access was denied under the personal privacy exemption.
Importance: The USSC declared that the personal privacy exemption should not be read as an absolute barrier against disclosure of information.
29
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown (1979)
Facts: An auto labor union requested employee information that Chrysler had filed with the DOD. Chrysler did not want the DOD to release the information.
Importance: The USSC declared that an official may release information covered by one of the exemptions specified in FOIA. The “catch-all” exemption must be followed.
30
Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (1980)
Facts: A request was made for access to the transcripts of Henry Kissinger’s telephone conversations when he was secretary of state and national security adviser. Library of Congress possessed notes.
Importance: The term “agency” does not apply to the Library of Congress. This means that FOIA does not apply to this institution.
31
Forsham v. Harris (1980)
Facts: The Committee on the Care of Diabetics wanted the FDA to request specific data from a team of consultants on the effectiveness of various diabetes treatments.
Importance: The USSC held that FOIA can not be used to compel a federal agency to obtain data from a private contractor if the agency does not want to.
32
Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE (1980)
Facts: GTE wanted to prevent information being released to consumer publications on television sets exploding.
Importance: The USSC upheld the “catch-all” exemption.
33
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson (1982)
Facts: The Nixon administration requested the FBI gather information on the “enemies” of the President.
Importance: The USSC held that law enforcement information does not lose its protection when summarized or reproduced for another reason.
34
Pell v. Procunier (1974)
Facts: The California state correctional authorities prohibited media interviews with specific individual inmates.
Importance: The USSC held that members of the media have no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded the general public.
35
Houchins v. KQED (1978)
Facts: A television station was denied access to a portion of the Santa Rita jail where an inmate was reported to have committed suicide.
Importance: The USSC extended the Pell decision by limiting the access of the press in jailhouses.
36
Garland v. Torre (1958)
Facts: Judy Garland wanted to know who at CBS revealed to Marie Torre that Garland was released from her contract. Torre refused and jailed for contempt.
Importance: Journalists must reveal his/her source if the government or plaintiff can meet the following “Three Part Test”:
(1) If the need of the information goes to the “Heart of the Matter;”
(2) If alternative sources have been exhausted;
(3) If there is probable cause to believe that the journalist has information that is relevant to the plaintiff’s claim.
37
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)
Facts: Branzburg appealed two court orders to testify in front of grand juries investigating drug use and sales. Caldwell and Pappus were requested to testify in front of grand juries concerning the Black Panthers.
Importance: The USSC determined that journalists, just like members of the public, have no First Amendment right to refuse to testify before a grand jury.
In dissent Justice Stewart stated the plaintiff must prove:
(1) Probable cause that a journalist has “clearly relevant” information;
(2) The information sought cannot be obtained by alternative means less destructive of First Amend Values; and
(3) “A compelling and overriding interest in the information.”
38
Criminal Proceedings - In re Farber (1978)
Facts: Myron Farber refused to produce notes of his investigation into suspicious deaths in a New Jersey Hospital. He spent 40 days in jail and the NY Times was fined $286,000.
Importance: Judges require journalists to turn over notes or names of sources to protect significant social interests such as the Sixth Amendment right of criminal defendants to obtain evidence in their favor and confront witnesses against them.
39
Civil Proceedings - Herbert v. Lando (1979)
Importance: The journalist’s “State of Mind” could be questioned and information could be required to be turned over.
40
Journalists as a Third Party - Baker v. F & F Investment (1973)
Facts: Alfred Balk wrote “Confessions of a Block-buster” for the Saturday Evening Post. His anonymous source was given the pseudonym of “Norris Vitcheck.” A group civil suit resulted and the plaintiffs wanted the source’s real name.
Importance: The Second Circuit ruled that the source did not have to be revealed because the three-part test of Justice Stewart had not been met. Other sources had not been exhausted.
41
Farr v. Superior Court of California (1971)
Facts: A California judge issued a gag order regarding information connected with murder trials involving Manson family members. Farr published information that was gained from one of the attorneys. Judge ordered Farr to name the source.
Importance: California shield law was ignored. The journalist had information about a certain crime and was asked to reveal that information. Farr spent 46 days in jail.
42
Brown v. Commonwealth (1974)
Importance: The court ruled that the plaintiff had to prove that the information sought goes to the heart of the matter.
43
Federal Common Law (?) - Riley v. Chester (1979)
Facts: A former police officer sued a journalist to find out what the present police chief had said about him.
Importance: The Third Circuit applied Rule 501 of Federal Rules of Evidence to protection of confidential sources - “All privileges shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts . . . in light of reason & experience.”
44
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)
Facts: Student photojournalist for Stanford Daily took pictures of a confrontation between police and students. A search warrant was issued to collect all film, negatives and prints for evidence purposes.
Importance: The USSC held that law enforcement agencies could use a search warrant to search newsrooms for evidence.
45
Press Privacy Protection Act of 1980
Law enforcement must meet a burden of proof before a search warrant can be issued. A subpoena should be issued first.
46
Minneapolis Star and Tribune v. US (1989)
Facts: FBI agents destroyed the camera and film of a photojournalist covering an FBI arrest.
Importance: The DC Circuit ruled in favor of the media and required the FBI to pay damages and attorney fees.
47
Confidentiality - Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1991)
Facts: Dan Cohen lost his public relations job after newspapers revealed his name in violation of a promise of confidentiality. He had revealed that a rival party candidate had been convicted of shoplifting 12 years earlier.
Importance: The USSC ruled that Minnesota’s promissory estoppel common law (fancy law word for oral contract) was not in violation of the First Amendment. Consequently, reporters need to be careful about what is promised to news sources.
48
Change of venue
use a new court house
49
Change of venire
use a new set of jurors
50
Continuance
a postponement or an adjournment.
51
Severance
the separation by the court of multiple claims to try each in a separate action
52
Voir dire
literally means, "to speak the truth"
53
Sequestration
keep jurors from any kind of outside media access during the trial
54
Judicial Admonition
Reminders from the judge about how jurors should conduct themselves
55
Challenge For Cause
- An attorney’s attempt to remove a potential juror for a reason the law finds sufficient (prejudice relevant to the case).
- Unlimited
56
Peremptory Challenge
- Challenge which may be made without any reason or cause
- Determine by state law as to how many of these an attorney may have
57
Irvin v. Dowd (1961)
Facts: Leslie Irvin was convicted for a murder in Evansville, Indiana. Case received extensive publicity. Press called the defendant “Mad Dog Irvin” and “Confessed Slayer of Six.”
Importance: The USSC stated that statements by jurors could be given little weight when so many jurors admitted to prejudice against the defendant so many times.
58
Rideau v. Louisiana (1963)
Facts: Wilbert Rideau confessed to murder. His filmed confession to a sheriff was aired by a local television station and seen by an estimated 100,000 people in Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Importance: The USSC declared that the televised confession in a very real sense was Rideau’s trial and further court proceedings would be pointless.
59
Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)
Facts: Dr. Sam Sheppard was convicted for murdering his wife, Marilyn. The television series and the movie, The Fugitive, were based on this case.
Importance: The USSC stressed that judges must ensure a dignified atmosphere in the court, including control over the behavior of journalists.
60
Murphy v. Florida (1975)
Facts: Murphy was arrested for robbery and assault. Before his trial on these charges, he was convicted of murder and interstate transportation of stolen securities. He argued his criminal record prevented him from receiving a fair trial.
Importance: The USSC held that members of the jury need not be “totally ignorant of the facts and issues” of a case. Justice Marshall went on to say that a mere familiarity with a defendant did not equal a predisposition against him/her.
61
Prior Restraints on Media
- Gag orders on the media: Generally unconstitutional
- Gag orders on news sources: anyone involved in the case is banned from talking to the media at risk of being charged with contempt of court
- Courts must consider three things before issuing a gag order on the media:
1. quantity and content of media coverage
2. potential effectiveness of alternatives to a gag
3. the likelihood that a gag would remedy the harmful publicity
62
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976)
Facts: Six members of a family were killed. A neighbor confessed to the killings. Judge issued an order prohibiting the publication of news obtained during public pretrial proceedings.
Importance: The USSC ruled that gag orders on the media are a prior restraint and should only be used after less restrictive alternative methods are used.
63
Federated Publications v. Swedburg (1981)
Facts: Judge Swedburg ordered reporters to sign an agreement that they would follow Washington’s Bench-Bar-Press Guidelines or they would not be allowed in the courtroom to cover the “Hillside Strangler” case.
Importance: The state supreme court ruled that Judge Swedburg’s order was not a prior restraint because no punishment was associated with a lack of compliance.
64
Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia (1978)
Facts: The Virginia Pilot identified a judge being investigated by the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, which reviews complaints concerning judicial misconduct. The divulging of the judge’s name violated a state law.
Importance: The USSC held that accurate reporting of the conduct of public officials falls under the protection of the First Amendment.
65
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979)
Importance: The USSC ruled that a WVA statute was overbroad because it singled out only newspapers for punishment. Court did say a state can punish the media for truthful information “to further a [state’s] need of the highest order.”
66
Post Publication Punishment
Generally, courts have ruled that the First Amendment prohibits punishment of the press for news stories about judicial proceedings.
States must provide a compelling governmental interest or prove a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.
67
ABA’s Canon 35
called for a ban on cameras and the broadcasts of trials.
68
ABA’s Rule 3 A (7)
modified the original ban to include cameras when an appellate court ruled they will not distract trial participants.
69
State of New Jersey v. Bruno Hauptmann (1935)
Facts: Bruno Hauptmann was accused of kidnapping and killing the 18-month-old son of Charles Lindbergh. Over 800 journalists covered the trial.
Importance: The media coverage outside the courtroom motivated the ABA to establish Canon 35.
70
Estes v. Texas (1965)
Facts: Estes became the focus of national media attention when he was charged with fraudulently inducing farmers to buy nonexistent fertilizer tanks and property. A two-day pretrial was broadcast live by both radio and television.
Importance: Justice Clark declared that cameras in the courtroom would adversely impact jurors, defendants, attorneys and the judge.
71
Chandler v. Florida (1981)
Facts: Two Miami Beach police officers were charged with burglarizing a restaurant. Two minutes and 55 seconds of the trial were broadcast--depicting only the prosecution’s side of the case.
Importance: The USSC ruled the presence of cameras in the courtroom does not automatically jeopardize a defendant’s right to a fair trial. A defendant must prove the harm that the cameras will cause.
72
Nixon v. Warner Communications (1978)
Facts: A record company wanted the right to copy the Nixon tapes for broadcasting and sale to the public.
Importance: The USSC ruled the record company did not have a right of access to all the records in their custody, particularly when the records are available through alternative means.
73
Gannett v. DePasquale (1979)
Facts: A judge prohibited the press from attending pretrial hearing in a police officer shooting case. The pretrial hearing concerned a confession and the evidence that resulted as “fruits” of the confession. Gannett used a 6th Amendment right of public trial argument.
Importance: The USSC declared that the press and the public do not have a constitutional right to attend pretrial hearings.
74
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980)
Facts: Before beginning the fourth trial attempt of accused murderer John Stevenson, Judge Richard Taylor closed the trial at the request of the defense.
Importance: The USSC held that the public and the media have a First Amendment right to attend trials, which are presumptively open unless the state can document an overriding interest in closure.
75
Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court, County of Norfolk (1982)
Facts: A Massachusetts law required trial courts to exclude members of the press and public from certain cases involving sexual offenses and testimony of victims less than eighteen years old. In a trial involving a male who was accused of raping three minors, the court, acting in reference to the Massachusetts statute, conducted a closed trial.
Importance: The USSC ruled that a court should not be closed unless the state can present a compelling state interest and that is narrowly tailored.
76
Press Enterprise I v. Riverside County Superior Court (1984)
Facts: A judge closed the voir dire examination of jurors in a rape-murder case. The judge also refused to release the transcripts of the questioning.
Importance: The USSC declared the press had a right of access to a transcript of a preliminary hearing so long as it didn’t invade or potentially invade the privacy of jurors’ voir dire information.
77
Press Enterprise II v. Riverside County Superior Court (1986)
Facts: A magistrate excluded the press from a preliminary hearing scheduled to determine whether there was probable cause that a nurse, Robert Diaz, had murdered a dozen hospital patients.
Importance: The USSC claimed defendants must provide specific evidence that an open courtroom would present a “substantial probability” of endangering their rights to a fair trial.
78
Civil Contempt
to get someone to do something.
79
Criminal Contempt
punishes disrespect for the court.
80
Direct Contempt
in the courtroom that disrupts the legal process.
81
Indirect Contempt
away from the courtroom. (This has been ruled to be generally unconstitutional as it does not impede court proceedings)
82
Bridges v. California (1941)
Facts: An official of the International Longshoremen-Warehousemen’s Union was held in contempt after he called a judge’s decision in a union dispute as “outrageous.”
Importance: The USSC ruled that punishment for criticism of pending court cases can occur only if there is an extremely serious evil imminent.
83
Pennekamp v. Florida (1946)
Facts: The Miami Herald published a series of inaccurate editorials that accused judges of protecting criminals more than the law-abiding public.
Importance: The USSC held that editorials that contain inaccurate information did not pose a clear and present danger to the administration of justice.
84
Craig v. Harney (1947)
Facts: Craig was held in contempt for comments made about a judge outside the courtroom.
Importance: The USSC ruled contempt powers should not be used to punish the media for what they communicate “unless there is no doubt that the utterances in question are a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.”
85
Dickinson v. U.S. (1973)
Facts: Two reporters violated a judge’s order not to publish testimony in a murder conspiracy case in Baton Rouge.
Importance: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declared that an injunction must be obeyed, regardless of the ultimate validity of the court order.
86
Deceptive Advertisements
- One that is likely to mislead.
- One that could deceive a reasonable consumer.
- One that contains a material statement or an omission that deceives.
87
Printers’ Ink Statutes
- Found in 47 states.
- Most make false advertising a misdemeanor.
- Are not a deterrent because of weak penalties and enforced on only a state level.
88
United States v. Edge Broadcasting (1993)
Facts have already been presented.
Importance: The USSC ruled states can regulate specific restrictions to broadcasting advertisements that cross state borders.
89
FTC v. Raladam (1931)
Facts: Raladam Company advertised crushed animal livers as a cure of problems from baldness to a solution to a bad back.
Importance: This decision motivated Congress to pass the Wheeler-Lea Amendment in 1938 to empower the FTC to act against all unfair and deceptive practices in commerce.
90
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
Facts: F.J. Chrestensen distributed handbills advertising tours of a former Navy submarine. This violated New York law. He reprinted the handbill with a “political” message on the back of the ad.
Importance: The USSC ruled that commercial advertising is not protected by the First Amendment.
91
FTC v. Colgate Palmolive (1965)
Facts: Rapid Shave had a demonstration in which the shaving cream claimed to shave “tough dry sandpaper.” In reality it was a piece of plexiglass.
Importance: The USSC declared fake demonstrations or mock- ups are illegal when the faked portion attempts to prove the product’s claim.
92
Pittsburgh Press v. Human Rights Commission (1973)
Facts: The Pittsburgh Press ran ads as “Help Wanted-Male” and “Help Wanted-Female.” The HRC issued an injunction to stop this practice.
Importance: The USSC declared employment discrimination an illegal commercial activity.
93
Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
Facts: Virginia had a state statute prohibiting advertising abortion referral services. An off-campus paper advertised an abortion service out of New York, a legal service in New York.
Importance: The USSC declared that speech does not lose protection of the First Amendment merely because it appears in the form of commercial advertisement.
94
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens’ Consumer Council (1976)
Facts: Virginia had a law that prohibited price advertisement for prescription drugs. A Citizens’ Group challenged the law.
Importance: The USSC recognized a constitutional protection for purely commercial speech motivated by a desire for profit.
95
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
Facts: Bates wanted to run advertisements of the prices he charges for routine legal services. This was in violation of State Bar regulations.
Importance: The USSC ruled that attorneys have a constitutional right to advertise the prices of routine services, such as a simple will or an uncontested divorce.
96
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (1985)
Facts: Zauderer wanted to run his law firm’s ads with pictures.
Importance: The USSC extended constitutional protection to illustrations and pictures in attorney’s ads.
97
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
Facts: A utility wanted to promote the use of electricity in violation of a state statute.
Importance: The USSC established a four-part test to determine the constitutionality of regulations on commercial speech.
1. The court must determine whether speech is commercial eligible for First Amendment protection (is there factual information for the consumer?).
2. The court must examine whether the government asserts a substantial interest in regulating the expression.
3. The court must examine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted.
4. The court must determine whether the regulation is sufficiently narrow.
98
Posades de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)
Facts: Puerto Rico had a law that prohibited ads directed at non-tourists to gamble at casinos.
Importance: The USSC allowed the ad ban. This case extended the four-prong test of Central Hudson.
99
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
Facts: In 2007, the Vermont legislature passed a law that banned the sale, transmission or use of prescriber-identifiable data (''PI data'') for marketing or promoting a prescription drug without the consent of the prescriber. The law also prohibited the sale, license or exchange for value of PI data for marketing or promoting a prescription drug.
Three companies -- IMS Health, Verispan and Source Healthcare Analytics, a unit of Dutch publisher Wolters Kluwer -- that collect and sell such data and by a trade group for pharmaceutical manufacturers challenged the law.
Importance: In ruling for IMS the Court struck down the Vermont measure, holding that it violated the First Amendment because it restricts the speech rights of data miners without directly advancing legitimate state interests. The Court declared that states must meet strict scrutiny tests in regulating commercial speech.
100
State University of NY v. Fox (1989)
Facts: SUNY had rules about using on-campus facilities for commercial activities. “Tupperware party” distributor refused to leave and challenged the university’s rules.
Importance: The USSC upheld SUNY’s rules and stated that the government doesn’t have to use the “least restrictive means” to regulate commercial speech as stated in the Central Hudson case.
101
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assoc. v. US (1999)
Facts: A broadcasting of casino advertising was prohibited in Louisiana. Broadcasters challenged the law.
Importance: The Court held that these types of ads can not be banned in states where gambling is legal. As a result of the decision the FCC has stopped enforcing restrictions on casino advertising even in states where gambling is illegal, unless there is a state law that prohibits such ads. The lottery ads are still banned in states where there is no lottery.
102
Watson v. Philip Morris (2007)
Facts: Consumer groups were suing cigarette manufacturers over the advertisements of “light” cigarettes as safer than regular cigarettes. Philip Morris argued that these cases could only be brought in federal courts.
Importance: The USSC held that states could allow such lawsuits to proceed.
103
First National Bank v. Bellotti (1978)
Facts: A Massachusetts law forbade corporate advertising for or against items to be voted on. The state argued that the money spent by corporations could drown out other points of view.
Importance: The USSC recognized that corporations have First Amendment rights to express itself and that banks and other financial institutions might be better informed on economic issues than other entities. Thus, a state can’t stop a corporation from placing their issue oriented advertisements.
104
44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island (1994)
Facts: Rhode Island had a statute that banned the advertisement of alcohol prices.
Importance: The USSC held that Rhode Island was unable to support the assertion that the price advertising ban will significantly advance the State’s interest in curbing alcohol consumption. Failed Central Hudson Test.
105
FTC Guidelines include: The Don’ts
- Don’t place disclosures in a place where they can be easily overlooked.
- Don’t use vague or confusing terms, e.g., “sp,” “spon,” or “collab.”
- Don’t make disclosures in languages other than the endorsement itself
- Don’t assume a social media platform’s disclosure tool is adequate on its own.
106
FTC Guidelines include: The Do’s
- Do provide simple explanations e.g., “Thanks (brand) for the free product.”
- Do use clear terms e.g., advertisement, sponsored, etc.
- If using a video platform, do make the disclosure both in audio and print in the video.
- If using a picture platform (e.g., Instagram Stories) do superimpose a disclosure over the image such that it is hard to miss.
