Kasky v. Nike — Do Corporations Have a Right to Lie?

Our archive on the Supreme Court case in which Nike claimed that the 1st amendment immunized the company from lawsuits over an allegedly deceptive public relations campaign.

Kasky v. Nike: Just the Facts

A summary of the facts of the case of Marc Kasky, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Nike Inc., et al., Defendants and Respondents as presented in the record of the Court of Appeal of the State of California. First Appellate District, Division One

Corporations Attempt to Gut the Nation’s Toughest Consumer Protection Law: California’s Unfair Business Practices Act

California corporate interests are paying for a ballot initiative to strip California residents of consumer protection safeguards.

The ACLU on Commercial Speech and Kasky v. Nike

(and our responses to ACLU claims) The ACLU statement appears as published on ACLU.org (2003) Editor’s Note: While this statement was written by the ACLU’s Northern CA chapter, the national headquarters directed people to it as representing the national ACLU’s position on Kasky v. Nike. The ACLU statement is followed by our rebuttals to specific […]

The 500-Pound Gorilla

Corporations make money by selling books and tests, while many more sell other things to children. The third way that schooling can be milked for profit is by letting corporations take over the management of the schools themselves, or even allowing them to own schools outright as they would a car dealership. Opportunities for such businesses have greatly expanded as a result of a movement simply to privatize education.

ACLU & Nike vs. Reason

Following the Civil War, corporations rapidly completed the transformation from tools to serve the public to tools for consolidating wealth and power for their owners. The culmination of this power grab may have come in 1886, when a U.S. Supreme Court reporter created “corporate personhood.” Nike and the ACLU of Northern California argued that because the company’s PR was partially political debate and not purely commercial, it had the “right” to tell its story with full 1st Amendment protection and bore no legal duty to be truthful.