Central Hudson was one of the most important Supreme Court cases on commercial speech.

The Supreme Court addressed whether a regulation of the NY Public Service Commission violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it completely bans promotional advertising by an electrical utility.

• the 14th amendment allows the first amendment to be used against the stat
• Should I regulate commercial speech test:
• Is the advertising false, deceptive, or promoting illegal activities?
• Is the government restriction justified by a substantial government interest?
  • Intermediate scrutiny
• Does the regulation advance government interests asserted?
• Is the regulation overly broad or unnecessarily restrictive to advance that government interest?
  • Reasonable fit between ends and means
• legal solicitation 30 days after an accident isn’t protected under the first amendment. You can still do it, but it’s not protected.

Prior case:

Court ruled that commercial speech WAS entitled to First Amendment protection despite previous

decisions to the contrary.

• Advertisements can provide valuable information to consumers, even of general public interest.
• The contrary argument in this case is that advertising would discount prices to the point that good

pharmacists would not exercise as much care in compounding their products.

• It would also hurt their image as professionals.

But, the Court noted, the pharmacists are already under regulation by the state.