>>8306162, >>8306713, >>8306269, >>8306304, >>8306676 Uighur Muslim prisoners shackled and blindfolded (vid clip) (ALL LB)
=Remember when Nike claimed they had a Constitutional right to lie to the public about labor abuse and the courts agreed?==
I do. That was fun.
sauce: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=fac_pub
sauce: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/nike-lawsuit-kasky-v-nike-re-denial-of-labour-abuses-0
Nike lawsuit (Kasky v Nike, re denial of labour abuses)
Marc Kasky filed suit against Nike in California state court in 1998 suing the company for unfair and deceptive practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. Prior to the lawsuit, various news reports alleged poor working conditions at Nike’s overseas supplier factories. In response, Nike issued press releases and other public statements rebutting the allegations. Kasky alleged that Nike’s public statements regarding the working conditions in its overseas suppliers’ factories contained false information and material omissions of fact. Specifically, Kasky took issue with Nike’s statements regarding the following: that workers who make Nike products are protected from physical and sexual abuse, they are paid in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations governing wages and hours, they are paid on average double the applicable local minimum wage, they receive a “living wage”, they receive free meals and health care, and their working conditions are in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations regarding occupational health and safety. Nike claimed that the lawsuit was barred by the US Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
The trial court agreed with Nike and dismissed the claim. Kasky appealed, and the California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Kasky appealed further to the California Supreme Court, which reversed the lower courts’ rulings and held that Nike’s statements were commercial speech which is entitled to less constitutional protection than non-commercial speech. Following the California Supreme Court’s ruling, Nike appealed (petitioned for certiorari) to the US Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the appeal. In 2003, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in this case stating that it had granted certiorari improvidently and dismissed the case, which effectively let stand the California Supreme Court’s ruling. Several months after the US Supreme Court decision, Nike and Kasky agreed to settle the case for $1.5 million. The settlement involved investments by Nike to strengthen workplace monitoring and factory worker programmes.
—————————————————
sauce: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-575.ZC.html
NIKE, INC., et al., PETITIONERS v. MARC KASKY
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
[June 26, 2003]
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, and with whom Justice Souter joins as to Part III,
concurring.
Beginning in 1996, Nike was besieged with a series of allegations that it was mistreating and underpaying workers at foreign facilities. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a. Nike responded to these charges in numerous ways, such as by sending out press releases, writing letters to the editors of various newspapers around the country, and mailing letters to university presidents and athletic directors. See id., at 3a—4a. In addition, in 1997, Nike commissioned a report by former Ambassador to the United Nations Andrew Young on the labor conditions at Nike production facilities. See id., at 67a. After visiting 12 factories, “Young issued a report that commented favorably on working conditions in the factories and found no evidence of widespread abuse or mistreatment of workers.” Ibid…..
——————————–
WWG1WGA