Nike Denied First Amendment Defense

Several people have written in about an interesting decision handed down by the California Supreme Court. Nike, which has been repeatedly criticized for sweatshop practices in its contractors' factories, has made a variety of statements to the press contradicting these allegations (although in general, third-party examinations find them to be substantiated). A lawsuit was filed, charging the company with deceptive advertising under California law, and Nike was accused of trying to greenwash its image. Nike claimed that the First Amendment prevented it from being sued for these statements. The first courts to look at the case agreed with Nike; the California Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs and allowed the suit to proceed. (See also Nike's press release.) There are all sorts of interesting issues raised concerning corporate and commercial speech, the protection it has/ought to have, etc. There's a law.com article that goes a little more into the legal issues.

Comments

Re:Alternatives to sweatshops:

[macshit]

As far as sweatshop-free athletic shoes, the least of many evils appears to be New Balance

Yeah, but ...

The last time I was on Microsoft's Redmond campus (granted, this was a long time ago, in '94), New Balance was everywhere.* I was horrified, and immediately went home and got rid of all my NB shoes.

Sure, if you wear Nike, you're condemning countless innocent people to lives of degradation and misery -- but is that really worse than wearing the Shoes of the Beast?

Think long and hard before you go that way...

[* Note, this is quite true, and I really did swear off NB after that, though I suppose that says more about me than about NB... :-']