edf40wrjww2CF_PaperMaster:Desc
MARK KASKY VERSUS NIKE INC. CASE
ISSUES
A. RELEVANT FACTS
Nike, Inc., were accused, workers who make products are not protected from and not subjected to corporal punishment and/or sexual abuse; Nike products are not made in accordance with applicable governmental laws and regulations governing wages and hours; Nike products are not made in accordance with applicable laws and regulations governing health and safety conditions; Nike does not pay average line-workers double-the-minimum wage in Southeast Asia; workers who produce Nike products do not receive free meals and health care; Nike is not doing a good job and not "operating morally"; and Nike does not guarantee a "living wage" for all workers who make products, Even though Nike Inc., claimed all these regulations before. The focal point of the lawsuit is Nike communications were commercial speech. Nike did not require to meet standards of truth and honesty enforced in California law. Nike was not entitled to difference that would be given under the First Amendment. Nike Inc., agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Marc Kasky accusing it of that false and misleading product information. California Supreme Court accepted the case and majority created definition of commercial speech and applied it to Nike’s messages. Speeches in the commercials have to come from a business, be intended for an audience of consumers and make representations of facts related to products.
B. QUESTION: Did the California Supreme Court make the correct decision? Why or why not?
RULES & ...