A True Fact Should Not Be Controversial: Analyzing the Zauderer Standard and Defining “Uncontroversial”

Authors

Edina Hartstein, Fordham University School of Law

Keywords

First Amendment; freedom of speech; compelled speech; Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel; National Institute of Family Life v. Becerra; exceptions; controversial; uncontroversial; purely factual; controversial topics; health; consumers; consumer protection; misattribution; disclosures; interpretations; consumer deception; informed choices; messaging

Abstract

In Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized an exception to the compelled speech doctrine that allowed the government to regulate commercial speech if it was “purely factual and uncontroversial.” However, the Court failed to define what it meant for a disclosure to be “purely factual” or what it meant to be “uncontroversial.” This lack of clarity led to lower courts inconsistently applying the Zauderer standard. In 2018, the Supreme Court decided National Institute for Family Life & Advocates v. Becerra (NIFLA), which held that the Zauderer standard cannot apply when the disclosure relates to a topic that is “controversial.” The Supreme Court’s opinion more sharply revealed lower courts’ confusion in applying the Zauderer standard. More so, it revealed the ability to define “controversial” in either an objective or subjective manner.

Professor Seana Shiffrin pinpointed this confusion by developing a theoretical framework shortly after NIFLA that demonstrated seven ways courts could define “uncontroversial.” This Note discusses the rationales for these seven interpretations and applies them to case law almost a decade after NIFLA. This Note demonstrates that, although there has been a shift away from reading “purely factual” as an extension of “uncontroversial” under the Zauderer standard, there is no consensus about what it means to be “uncontroversial” post-NIFLA. Ultimately, this Note argues that required government disclosures are “uncontroversial” and satisfy the First Amendment when they are purely factual. Moreover, any concerns related to NIFLA can be addressed by disclosing whose message a speaker is relaying.

Recommended Citation

Edina Hartstein, A True Fact Should Not Be Controversial: Analyzing the Zauderer Standard and Defining “Uncontroversial”, 94 Fordham L. Rev. 1105 (2025).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol94/iss3/6