Council for Responsible Nutrition’s Post

With regard to Claudia Adrien 's story in NutraIngredients (https://lnkd.in/giidvDMM) about our lawsuit in New York... Respectfully, the legal analysts interviewed for this story fail to appreciate key aspects of the case. They overlook the fact that commercial speech including truthful health information about dietary supplements — whether conveyed through labeling or advertising (and the New York law covers both) — is protected by the First Amendment. Moreover, the attorneys miss the arguments in our brief that even if the restriction itself (here an age limit on sales) is “conduct,” a law still implicates the First Amendment if the trigger for the restriction is speech (in this case a weight loss or muscle building claim in labeling or advertising).  Lastly, they overlook a long line of Supreme Court doctrine that espouses that a complete prohibition of speech is not required; any burden or restriction that chills speech can implicate the First Amendment’s protections.   Essentially, they miss that the law compels companies to alter marketing strategies, impacting their ability to communicate truthfully and lawfully about product benefits. As we argue in the brief, that violates the First Amendment’s protections on even commercial speech.    

  • No alternative text description for this image

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics