No, this law does not violate free speech. A higher court in this region (the Ninth Circuit) already decided in a past case called 'Actmedia' that this kind of law is okay. Even though the Supreme Court has had some newer cases about business advertising, none of them directly say that the 'Actmedia' decision was wrong. Since I am a judge in a lower court, I have to follow the decisions of the higher courts. Therefore, the old decision still stands, and the California law is allowed.

Yes, RDN is allowed to challenge the law because it lost money when alcohol companies wouldn't advertise due to the law. The law does treat alcohol companies' advertising differently, which could be a free speech issue. But the law doesn't completely ban alcohol ads, and a previous court case (Actmedia) allowed a similar law. Some newer Supreme Court cases suggest tougher rules for laws targeting certain speech, but they don't clearly overrule Actmedia since this law isn't a complete ban. So under Actmedia, which the court must follow, the California law is okay and doesn't violate free speech. The court sides with ABC.

No, California Business & Professions Code § 25503 does not violate the First Amendment. This court is bound by the Ninth Circuit's precedent in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh, which previously upheld a subsection of this statute against a First Amendment challenge. Although subsequent Supreme Court cases like Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 44 Liquormart, Inc., and Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. have further developed commercial speech jurisprudence, they are not 'clearly irreconcilable' with the Actmedia decision. These later cases did not explicitly overrule the Central Hudson test for commercial speech, which Actmedia applied. Therefore, because the controlling circuit precedent remains valid, the statute is constitutional and the defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

Yes, RDN has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 25503 because it has suffered economic harm from advertisers declining to contract due to the statute. On the merits, Section 25503 is not a content-neutral time, place, or manner restriction because it disfavors certain forms of commercial speech by alcohol manufacturers. However, the statute is not a complete ban on commercial speech and is not clearly irreconcilable with the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Actmedia upholding a similar law under the Central Hudson test. More recent Supreme Court cases like 44 Liquormart and Sorrell, while suggesting heightened scrutiny may apply to content-based commercial speech restrictions, do not overrule Actmedia because Section 25503 is not a complete speech ban. Therefore, the Court grants ABC's motion for summary judgment because RDN has not shown Section 25503 violates the First Amendment under the controlling Actmedia precedent.

Retail Digital Network, LLC v. Appelsmith

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot