Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Kasky v. Nike and the California Supreme Court

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    In Kasky v. Nike, Inc., the California Supreme Court drew a distinction between a noncommercial speaker's statements criticizing a product as generally noncommercial speech and a commercial speaker's statements in praise or support of the same product.

    What was this distinction, and why did the California Supreme Court make it?

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 2:07 am ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    In Kasky v. Nike, Inc., Kasky brought suit against Nike seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief under California law. Kasky, on behalf of the public, was seeking a judgment indicating that Nike used false advertising and unfair competition. Kasky claimed that Nike made false statements to the press, wrote false letters to newspapers, and forged public documents about its labor practices in factories that produce Nike products. Kasky alleged that Nike did these things ...

    Solution Summary

    This solution of 299 words discusses the CA Supreme Court cases Kasky v. Nike. and explains the distinction between noncommercial statements and company advertisement speech and justifies the actions of the CA Supreme Court.