Pfizer’s “right of reply”
Executive Summary
Supreme Court dismisses Nike v. Kasky as "improvidently granted," in which Pfizer argued manufacturers need a First Amendment-protected "right of reply" when their products are criticized. In one of 31 amicus briefs filed in the case stemming from California's unfair competition and false advertising laws, Pfizer proposed a three-part test for determining when a company's right to reply is protected (1"The Pink Sheet" March 10, 2003, p. 29). High court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear Nike's appeal and said further proceedings were necessary in the state court...
Supreme Court dismisses Nike v. Kasky as "improvidently granted," in which Pfizer argued manufacturers need a First Amendment-protected "right of reply" when their products are criticized. In one of 31 amicus briefs filed in the case stemming from California's unfair competition and false advertising laws, Pfizer proposed a three-part test for determining when a company's right to reply is protected (1 (Also see "Pfizer Asks Supreme Court To Protect “Right Of Reply” In Cases Like ALLHAT" - Pink Sheet, 10 Mar, 2003.), p. 29). High court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear Nike's appeal and said further proceedings were necessary in the state court.... |