Last week, in a case that we reported on several years ago, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an Illinois village’s restriction on painted wall signs passes constitutional muster. The case, which originated
Earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Tennessee’s outdoor advertising statute, finding it to be content-based in violation of the First Amendment. The court’s ruling affirms an earlier ruling by a federal district court.
A billboard owner challenged the Tennessee Billboard Act after he posted a sign supporting the 2012 U.S. Olympic Team. The sign was located on vacant land, and the owner had failed to secure a permit from the Tennessee Department of Transportation for the billboard, as required by the law. The transportation department’s rationale for denying the permit was that it was not entitled to the law’s exception to permitting for on-premises signs, which the law generally defined as relating to the premises on which the sign was posted. While the TBA was generally intended to apply exclusively to commercial off-premises speech, the state’s denial of a permit to the plaintiff appeared to apply to noncommercial speech, i.e., the owner’s support for the Olympic team.
Continue Reading In Sweeping Ruling, Federal Appeals Court Invalidates Tennessee Billboard Law
In a decision issued last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New York City’s Taxi and Limousine Commission can restrict in-vehicle commercial advertising in for-hire vehicles, including yellow cabs, Uber, and Lyft. The decision reverses an earlier ruling by a district court holding that the ban violated the First Amendment rights of advertisers.
New York City’s TLC regulates for-hire vehicles in the city. For nearly 20 years, the TLC has prohibited commercial advertising in for-hire vehicles, except on screens installed in yellow cabs called “Taxi TV,” which otherwise allow patrons to use credit cards to pay their cab fares. Noncommercial messages are permitted to be displayed in for-hire vehicles. Vugo is a company that wished to sell a software platform for advertising in Uber and Lyft vehicles, which are not otherwise equipped with Taxi TV. The TLC rules prohibited Vugo’s proposal, and Vugo sought relief in federal court.
Continue Reading New York City Can Ban Commercial Advertising In Cabs, Uber, Lyft Under New Ruling
This blog post was authored by Alexandra Haggarty, a summer clerk with Otten Johnson. Alex is a rising 3L at the University of Colorado Law School.
A federal judge in North Dakota recently granted a temporary restraining order to enjoin the City of Mandan from enforcing a content-based ordinance regulating murals and signs.
The ordinance requires building owners to obtain a permit before displaying a sign or figurative wall mural. A commission reviewing applications makes decisions based on guidelines and regulations, including those prohibiting murals that are commercial, have words as a dominant feature of the art, have political messages, or are on the front of the building.
The Lonesome Dove, a saloon that’s been a fixture on a main road for twenty-eight years, had until recently only decorated its exterior with beer ads. Most recently, it had a Coors Light logo painted on the front wall. Although the saloon never sought a permit for the logo, it was never cited for violation. Seeking to reinvigorate its exterior, the saloon – not knowing it needed a permit – painted a 208 square-foot Western-themed “Lonesome Dove” mural on the front of the building in 2018.
Continue Reading North Dakota City’s Mural Regulations Enjoined By Federal Court
A San Francisco ordinance requiring health warnings on advertisements for some sugar-sweetened beverages has suffered an early defeat. On January 31, the Ninth Circuit ruled, en banc, that the district court should have granted
Fewer than six months after it was enacted as an “emergency” measure, a Cincinnati ordinance singling out billboards for special taxes has succumbed to a constitutional challenge. The ordinance, which met legal headwinds from the start, transparently aimed to make life miserable for the city’s billboard operators and consisted of two primary components: (1) a special tax on revenues from billboard advertising and (2) a hush provision preventing those operators from telling advertisers about the tax. An Ohio judge wasted little time in finding both provisions unconstitutional and
Continue Reading Cincinnati “Billboard Tax” Found Unconstitutional Just Months After Enactment
Last month, a federal court ruled that New Jersey’s prohibition on “BYOB” advertising—that is, advertising by drinking and entertainment establishments allowing patrons to bring their own alcoholic beverages—violated the First Amendment. As a result of the court’s ruling, Garden State restaurants will now be allowed to post advertisements encouraging their patrons to bring their own wine and beer.
New Jersey law allowed patrons to bring wine or beer onto the premises of establishments that are not licensed to serve alcoholic beverages, but prohibited such establishments from advertising that it was permissible to do so. An Atlantic City nightclub, Stiletto, filed suit in federal district court against Atlantic City and the state, seeking to invalidate the state law. Stiletto wished to advertise that patrons could bring their own beverages to the nightclub.
Continue Reading New Jersey Prohibition On “BYOB” Advertising Found Unconstitutional
In an effort to curb visual clutter and reduce litter, Chicago’s sign ordinance has, since 2007, prohibited posting “commercial advertising material” on city-owned property. No longer, however. Writing recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois struck
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently declared unconstitutional New York City’s ban on advertising in vehicles other than exempted taxis. Under the city’s program, medallion and certain other taxis could display advertising, including seat-back television content and advertising, but other for-hire vehicles (“FHVs”), like those used for Lyft and
Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld San Francisco’s prohibition on new off-site commercial billboards, rejecting a First Amendment claim to the contrary made by a billboard company. The case reaffirms the distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech regulation under the First Amendment, and limits the scope of Reed v. Town of Gilbert.
Since 2002, San Francisco has prohibited the erection of new off-site billboards—which advertise products or services not available on the property where the billboards are located—while allowing new on-site business signs. The prohibition amounts to an effective ban on new billboards in San Francisco, although billboards that predated the ban are allowed to remain in place. The plaintiff, Contest Promotions, LLC, is a billboard company that challenged San Francisco’s regulation under the First Amendment. The district court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss filed by the City and County of San Francisco.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Allows San Francisco’s Billboard Ban to Stand