The Supreme Court\u27s recent dismissal, apparently on jurisdictional grounds, of the writ of certiorari it had granted to review Nike, Inc. v. Kasky has brought into sharp focus a number of critiques of the commercial speech doctrine - some new, some longstanding. At issue in Nike were communications Nike made to customers, newspaper editors, college presidents and athletic directors, and others responding to allegations that Nike had engaged in, or was complicit in, the mistreatment of foreign workers. Respondent Marc Kasky contended that Nike\u27s communications contained significant misstatements of fact and thus were actionable under California\u27s unfair competition and false advertising laws. Nike countered that, even if it had made factual misstatements, its communications were part of an ongoing public debate about the labor practices of multinational corporations generally and, for that reason, they were fully protected under the First Amendment. A sharply divided California Supreme Court rejected Nike\u27s theory, but the United States Supreme Court agreed to review Nike\u27s First Amendment claim. After full briefing and argument, a divided Court dismissed the writ as improvidently granted, much to the disappointment of Nike and its supporters who had forecast a Nike victory
