Poughkeepsie Buying Service, Inc. v. Poughkeepsie Newspapers, Inc.
1954 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3337, 131 N.Y.S.2d 515, 205 Misc. 982 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The business of publishing a newspaper is a private enterprise, not one affected with a public interest, and in the absence of a statute to the contrary, a publisher is under no legal obligation to accept and publish advertising from all who may apply for it.
Facts:
- A merchant operated two retail stores in the city of Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
- The defendant, Poughkeepsie Newspapers, Inc., published the 'Poughkeepsie New Yorker,' the only general daily newspaper in the city.
- Due to its large circulation and reputation, the newspaper was the dominant advertising medium in its publication area.
- The merchant attempted to place advertising in the defendant's newspaper.
- The newspaper refused to publish the merchant's advertising.
- The merchant alleged this refusal was due to pressure and coercion from competing local merchants.
- As a result of the refusal to publish its ads, the merchant's business was seriously reduced.
Procedural Posture:
- A merchant filed a complaint against a newspaper publisher in a New York trial court.
- The merchant's complaint sought an injunction to compel the newspaper to accept and publish its advertising.
- The newspaper publisher, as the defendant, filed a motion to dismiss the merchant's complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a newspaper publisher, operating as the dominant advertising medium in a local area, have a legal duty to accept and publish commercial advertising from a merchant who is willing to pay the standard rate?
Opinions:
Majority - Eager, J.
No. A newspaper publisher does not have a legal duty to accept advertising from any party. The court held that the business of publishing a newspaper is a private enterprise and is not 'affected with a public interest' in the way that common carriers or innkeepers are. The court explicitly rejected the minority view from an Ohio case (Uhlman v. Sherman) and adopted the majority rule that publishers are free to contract and deal with whom they please. Citing New York precedent like Locker v. American Tobacco Co., the court affirmed the 'inherent right which every person may exercise lawfully' to refuse trade relations. This right can only be limited by firmly established common law principles, which do not apply here, or by specific statutory regulations. Because the New York legislature has not enacted any law requiring newspapers to accept advertising, the court cannot impose such a duty. The publisher's reasons for rejecting an advertisement are immaterial, absent allegations of a fraudulent conspiracy or an unlawful monopoly, which were not present in this case.
Analysis:
This decision establishes in New York law that newspapers are private businesses with the freedom to choose their advertisers, rather than quasi-public utilities with a duty to serve all comers. It distinguishes the press from entities traditionally 'affected with a public interest,' such as common carriers, which have a common-law duty to serve the public without discrimination. The ruling clarifies that any 'must-carry' advertising obligation on newspapers must be imposed by the legislature through statute, not created by the courts. This precedent strengthens the commercial autonomy of the press, reinforcing that the freedom of contract includes the right not to contract.
