Kasky Vs Nike Summary
Kasky v. Nike, Inc
The plaintiff in this case was Marck Kasky who filed a suit against Nike the defendant for what he believed to be false and misleading advertising.
The appellant Mark Kasky filed an appeal against Nike the appellee.
Trial court was won by Nike,
At the lower appellate level the decision was for Kasky
In the case neither Nike nor Kasky won. The law suit ended in a settlement although Nike had to pay.
The plaintiff filed a suit against Nike because he objected to a campaign by Nike that it had improved conditions on its overseas plants.
The Plaintiffs theory was that he thought Nikes campaign was of a commercial speech nature and was not protected by the law and subject to government regulations and making it subject
to truth in advertizing.
The defendant’s theory was that its speech was not commercial but, that it was a public relations campaign a response to public interest, public dialog and concern and a noncommercial speech. . And that there was not enough evidence that it was, and it was protected under the first amendment freedom of speech. The legal issue here is whether the speech/campaign was commercial or noncommercial and protected under the first amendment.
Holding of the court was that it was not protected under the first amendment due to its targeted audience.
Was the case decided correctly? Yes, I believe it was. Although Nike was responding to the interests of the public about its labor issues and factory conditions overseas, It was also directed at colleges and universities which represented a commercial audience. The speaker was also speaking about its own business operations promoting its own products.
Mallor, Jane P., A. James Barnes, Thomas Bowers, Arlen Langvardt. (2010). Business Law The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment. 14th Ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin.
The plaintiff in this case was Marck Kasky who filed a suit against Nike the defendant for what he believed to be false and misleading advertising.
The appellant Mark Kasky filed an appeal against Nike the appellee.
Trial court was won by Nike,
At the lower appellate level the decision was for Kasky
In the case neither Nike nor Kasky won. The law suit ended in a settlement although Nike had to pay.
The plaintiff filed a suit against Nike because he objected to a campaign by Nike that it had improved conditions on its overseas plants.
The Plaintiffs theory was that he thought Nikes campaign was of a commercial speech nature and was not protected by the law and subject to government regulations and making it subject
to truth in advertizing.
The defendant’s theory was that its speech was not commercial but, that it was a public relations campaign a response to public interest, public dialog and concern and a noncommercial speech. . And that there was not enough evidence that it was, and it was protected under the first amendment freedom of speech. The legal issue here is whether the speech/campaign was commercial or noncommercial and protected under the first amendment.
Holding of the court was that it was not protected under the first amendment due to its targeted audience.
Was the case decided correctly? Yes, I believe it was. Although Nike was responding to the interests of the public about its labor issues and factory conditions overseas, It was also directed at colleges and universities which represented a commercial audience. The speaker was also speaking about its own business operations promoting its own products.
Mallor, Jane P., A. James Barnes, Thomas Bowers, Arlen Langvardt. (2010). Business Law The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment. 14th Ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin.