Supreme Court unexpectedly sidestepped probably the most monitored freespeech cases of its term Thursday and left in place at least for the time being a Bay area man's lawsuit challenging Nike Inc.'s statements about its overseas labor practices.
After granting review, hearing oral arguments and receiving an array of written filings from major businesses, news media, public relations firms and others, the court announced tersely it shouldn't have decided to take up the case in the first place.
Nike, the earth's largest running shoe maker, was Nike Free Run 3 appealing a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed a falseadvertising suit within the company's pr campaign defending conditions in the factories of its Asian contractors. The central concern is whether such statements should be thought about advertising which can be regulated or subjected to lawsuits if false or misleading or ordinary speech, which has strong constitutional protections.
The vote was 63 to return the case towards the California courts, where it should visit trial in San Francisco in the fall of 2004, based on , attorney for plaintiff . The case could go back to the final Court in a future appeal.
The situation involves Nike's campaign in 1996 and 1997 to counter allegations of mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of workers in contractors' Asian factories.
Nike said the factories complied with their home countries' laws on pay and safety and that workers were treated humanely. The statements were issued in press releases, letters to the editor, speeches along with other public pronouncements.
Kasky claimed in his 1998 lawsuit that Nike made numerous false statements made to lure customers by whitewashing factory conditions. He sought to require the organization to return illegally obtained profits to customers and conduct a corrective public information campaign.
The suit was dismissed by lower courts, which said the statements were free speech, constitutionally protected whether true or false, however it was reinstated through the California Top court in May 2002.
Because Nike's statements were targeted at potential customers, concerned its products and were designed to enhance sales, they are "commercial speech" just like conventional advertisements and are covered by falseadvertising laws, the state court said inside a 43 ruling. .