Debiasing through law and the first amendment

Stanford Law Review

Volumn 67, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1411-1446

  Jolls, Christine ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84934950520     PISSN: 00389765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (154)

1. Howard Beales, Richard Craswell & Steven C. Salop, The Efficient Regulation of Consumer Information, 24 J.L. & ECON. 491 (1981) (discussing information within markets)
2. David E. Pozen, Deep Secrecy, 62 STAN. L. REV. 257 (2010) (discussing information regarding the government)
3. Omri Ben-Shahar & Carl E. Schneider, MORE THAN YOU WANTED TO KNOW: THE FAILURE OF MANDATED DISCLOSURE (2014) (offering a critical view of information-oriented legal remedies).
4. Beales, Craswell & Salop, supra note 1, at 513.
5. Joseph E. Stiglitz, ECONOMICS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR 83-84 (3d ed. 2000) (referencing regulations requiring information provision on labels).
6. Christine Jolls & Cass R. Sunstein, Debiasing Through Law, 35 J. LEGAL STUD. 199-200 (2006).
7. Beales, Craswell & Salop, Supra note 1, at 495-501 (discussing the law of deceptive advertising).
8. Alan Schwartz, Regulating for Rationality, 67 STAN. L. REV. 1373-1376 (2015) (offering an example of mortgage borrower overoptimism).
9. M. Ryan Calo, Against Notice Skepticism in Privacy (and Elsewhere), 87 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1027+1028-29 (2012) (referencing the use of “‘command-and-control’ regulations” if mandated disclosure is rejected).
10. Beales, Craswell & Salop, supra note 1, at 513.
11. Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements, 75 Fed. Reg. 69,524, 69,525 n.4 (proposed Nov. 12, 2010) (listing countries adopting visual warning re-quirements for tobacco packaging)
12. The Globally Harmonised System for Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), INT’L LABOR ORG. (Dec. 4, 2009), http://www.ilo.org/safework/info/WCMS_111336/lang--en/index.htm (referencing potential international adoption of the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals).
13. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 650-53 (1985)
14. Am. Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 760 F.3d 18, 21-27 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc).
15. Ellen P. Goodman, Visual Gut Punch: Persuasion, Emotion, and the Constitutional Meaning of Graphic Disclosure, 99 CORNELL L. REV. 513, 564-67 (2014)
16. Jennifer M. Keighley, Can You Handle the Truth? Compelled Commercial Speech and the First Amendment, 15 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 539, 541, 563-66 (2012)
17. Robert Post, Compelled Commercial Speech, 117 W. VA. L. REV. 867-868 (2015).
18. Richard J. Bonnie, The Impending Collision Between First Amendment Protection for Commercial Speech and the Public Health: The Case of Tobacco Control, 29 J.L. & POL. 599-614 (2014).
19. Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 765 (1976).
20. Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651 (quoting In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 201 (1982)) (internal quotation mark omitted).
21. See infra Parts I.B, II.B.
22. Am. Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 760 F.3d 18, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc).
23. Letter from Eric Holder, Att’y Gen., to John Boehner, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives (Mar. 15, 2013), available at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/03-15-2013.pdf.
24. Bonnie, supra note 13, at 600-01, 609-10, 612-17
25. Caroline Mala Corbin, Compelled Disclosures, 65 ALA. L. REV. 1277, 1309-24 (2014)
26. Nathan Cortez, Do Graphic Tobacco Warnings Violate the First Amendment?, 64 HASTINGS L.J. 1467, 1468-96 (2013)
27. Goodman, supra note 12, at 531-67
28. Keighley, supra note 12, at 575-88
29. Post, supra note 12, at 907-09
30. Allen Rostron, Pragmatism, Paternalism, and the Constitutional Protection of Commercial Speech, 37 VT. L. REV. 527, 565-74 (2013)
31. Nat Stern, Graphic Labels, Dire Warnings, and the Facile Assumption of Factual Content in Compelled Commercial Speech, 29 J.L. & POL. 577, 581-84, 587-97 (2014)
32. Rebecca Tushnet, More than a Feeling: Emotion and the First Amendment, 127 HARV. L. REV. 2392, 2404-15 (2014).
33. Neal Feigenson & Christina Spiesel, Law On Display: The Digital Transformation Of Legal Persuasion And Judgment 5-6 (2009).
34. Tex. Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v. Lakey, 667 F.3d 570, 573 (5th Cir. 2012).
35. Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 765 (1976)
36. Am. Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 760 F.3d 18, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc)
37. Beales, Craswell & Salop, supra note 1, at 492.
38. Gerda I.J. Feunekes et al., Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling: Testing Ef-fectiveness of Different Nutrition Labelling Formats Front-of-Pack in Four European Countries, 50 APPETITE 57-60 (2008) (presenting responses to questions such as “How much do you like the health indicator on this product[?]” and “How credible is this health indicator to you[?]” (internal quotation marks omitted))
39. David L. Mayer, Identifiability and Effective-ness of Graphic Symbols Used in Warning Messages 68-69 (Apr. 1990) (unpublished M.A. thesis, Rice University) (on file with author) (presenting responses to questions such as “How gory is the hazard depicted by this warning?” and “If you were injured, how painful might it be?”).
40. The Globally Harmonised System for Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), supra note 10.
41. A Guide to The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMIN. § 4.3, https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/ghs.html#4.3 (last visited June 8, 2015).
42. Chem. Inspection & Regulation Serv., CLP Compliant Label (GHS Label)—Information Requirements (n.d.), available at http://www.cirs-reach.com/CLP/CLP_Compliant_Label_Brochure.pdf (providing an illustration of a methanol label with skull and crossbones).
43. Hazard Communication, 77 Fed. Reg. 17,574 (Mar. 26, 2012) (codified at 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910, 1915, 1926 (2014)).
44. Council Directive 92/58/EEC, On the Minimum Requirements for the Provi-sion of Safety and/or Health Signs at Work, annex II, § 3.3, 1992 O.J. (L 245) 23, 31-32 (EC).
45. Brady Vinyl Mandatory Eye Protection Sign, 50 x 50mm, RS, http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/mandatory-signs-labels/1578548 (last visited June 8, 2015) (right-hand upper symbol in Figure 2)
46. Mandatory Safety Sign—Mask 011, SIGNBUYER.CO.UK, http://www.signbuyer.co.uk/mandatory-safety-sign---mask-011-641-p.asp (last visited June 8, 2015) (symbol in middle row and column in Figure 2)
47. Brady PET Mandatory Respiratory Protection Sign, RS, http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/mandatory-signs -labels/1792615 (last visited June 8, 2015) (right-hand middle symbol in Figure 2)
48. Brady Vinyl Mandatory Protective Gloves Sign, 50 x 50mm, RS, http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/mandatory-signs-labels/1578504 (last visited June 8, 2015) (right-hand lower symbol in Figure 2).
49. Simeon Tegel, Ecuador to Tax Fast Food in Effort to Halt Soaring Obesity Rate, INDEPENDENT (Sept. 11, 2014), http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ecuador-to-tax-fast-food-in-effort-to-halt-soaring-obesity-rate-9727366.html.
50. Amy Guthrie, Junk Food Feels the Heat in Latin America, WALL ST. J. (Dec. 27, 2013, 4:22 PM ET), http://on.wsj.com/1T9fvBp (noting the new Ecuadorian nutri-tion traffic lights and other recent policy initiatives).
51. Tegel, supra note 36.
52. Guthrie, supra note 37.
53. DougRHPJ, TWITTER (Aug. 21, 2014, 4:17 PM), https://twitter.com/DougRHPJ /status/502595483664396288
54. Another view of the Ecuadorian traffic light label appears in an Ecuadorian news article. See Authorities Control the Use of the Nutritional Traffic Light in Foods, ECUADORTIMES (Dec. 1, 2014), http://www.ecuadortimes.net/2014/12/01/authorities-control-use-nutritional-traffic-light-foods.
55. Richard Craswell, Taking Information Seriously: Misrepresentation and Non-disclosure in Contract Law and Elsewhere, 92 VA. L. REV. 565-595 (2006) (quoting In re Kraft, Inc., 114 F.T.C. 40, 122 (1991)).
56. In re Kraft, Inc., 114 F.T.C. at 119-20.
57. Robert B. Reich, Consumer Protection and the First Amendment: A Dilemma for the FTC?, 61 MINN. L. REV. 705, 709-10 (1977) (observing that under FTC case law “literal truth is no defense to a charge of deceptive practices if assertions in the advertisement are so combined as to convey a misleading representation on a casual reading”).
58. See In re Kraft, Inc., 114 F.T.C. at 121-22.
59. Supra note 19 and accompanying text.
60. Food & Drug Admin., Proposed Required Warning Images 50 (Nov. 2010), available at http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FDA-2010-N-0568-0002&attachmentNumber=2&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf
61. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 266, 273 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 696 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012). But see Am. Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 760 F.3d 18, 22-23 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that “[t]o the extent that” R.J. Reynolds declines to apply the “reasonably related” standard to legally required com-munications that are not targeted to “correcting deception, we now overrule [it]” (emphasis added)).
62. R.J. Reynolds, 696 F.3d at 1217-21 (striking down visual tobacco warnings based on reasoning different from that employed by the district court).
63. Rebecca Tushnet, Worth a Thousand Words: The Images of Copyright, 125 HARV. L. REV. 683-686 (2012).
64. Christopher J. Buccafusco, Gaining/Losing Perspective on the Law, or Keeping Visual Evidence in Perspective, 58 U. MIAMI L. REV. 609-617 (2004).
65. Kraft, Inc., 114 F.T.C. 40, 121-22 (1991).
66. James Nonnemaker et al., EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF GRAPHIC CIGARETTE WARNING LABELS: FINAL RESULTS REPORT app. A at A-12 (2010), available at http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FDA-2010-N-0568-0008&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf (text of question)
67. Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements, 75 Fed. Reg. 69,524, 69,529 (proposed Nov. 12, 2010).
68. Cigarette Smoking: Health Risks and How to Quit, NAT’L CANCER INST., http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/control-of-tobacco-use/HealthProfessional/page3#section_3.1 (last updated Feb. 13, 2015).
69. Nonnemaker et al., supra note 52, app. C2 at 1 tbl.C-1, 4 tbl.C-2, 8 tbl.C-3, 11 tbl.C-4, 14 tbl.C-5, 17 tbl.C-6, 27 tbl.C-9 (presenting results for seven warning groups, of nine groups total, in which agreement with the specified statement was lower—all but the first and last of the cited tables—or not clearly different in either direction—the first and last tables—with visual tobacco warnings than with warnings including just the textual component of the visual warnings).
70. Food & Drug Admin., Supra note 46, at 20 (showing image in Figure 5)
71. Nonnemaker et al., supra note 52, app. C2 at 4 tbl.C-2 (reporting estimated odds ratio of 0.431 for the likelihood of agreement among those viewing the warning in Figure 5 com-pared to the likelihood of agreement among those viewing a text-only counterpart).
72. Christine Jolls, Product Warnings, Debiasing, and Free Speech: The Case of Tobacco Regulation, 169 J. INSTITUTIONAL & THEORETICAL ECON. 53, 63-68 (2013), presents further evidence on this point.
73. Louis Kaplow, Information and the Aim of Adjudication: Truth or Consequences?, 67 STAN. L. REV. 1303 (2015).
74. Richard Craswell, Interpreting Deceptive Advertising, 65 B.U. L. REV. 657, 675-76 (1985).
75. Andrea Rother & Leslie London, DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDANCE AND TRAIN-ING MATERIALS ON COMPREHENSIBILITY TESTING: POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS 1 (2002), available at http://www2.unitar.org/cwm/publications/pag_ghs/pag2/pag_2-3.pdf.
76. FRIDGE/UNITAR, STUDY INTO THE IMPLICATIONS OF IMPLEMENTING THE GLOBALLY HARMONISED SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION AND LABELLING OF CHEMICALS AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR SOUTH AFRICA, PART 2: CHEMICAL HAZARD COMPREHENSIBILITY TESTING TOOL AND TOOLKIT 15-16, 362-63 (2003). It is un-clear whether the slight difference in the size of the skull and crossbones across the two la-bels was an intentional aspect of the study design.
77. Christine Jolls, BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS AND THE LAW 15-16 (2011) (discussing optimism bias)
78. Schwartz, supra note 7, at 1376 (offering an example of overoptimistic consumers).
79. Jolls & Sunstein, supra note 4, at 207-16 (discussing debiasing strategies as a response to irrationally optimistic risk perceptions).
80. FRIDGE/UNITAR, STUDY INTO THE IMPLICATIONS OF IMPLEMENTING THE GLOBALLY HARMONISED SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION AND LABELLING OF CHEMICALS AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR SOUTH AFRICA, PART 3: CHEMICAL HAZARD COMMUNICATION COMPREHENSIBILITY TESTING; STUDY REPORT 33-34 (2003)
81. Mohamed Aqiel Dalvie et al., Chemical Hazard Communication Comprehensibility in South Africa: Safety Implications for the Adoption of the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, 61 SAFETY SCI. 51-56 (2014) (academic journal version of these empirical results).
82. See FRIDGE/UNITAR, supra note 65, at 5-7, 33 tbl.6.11
83. Dalvie et al., supra note 65, at 53-55 & tbl.9.
84. FRIDGE/UNITAR, supra note 65, at 21 tbl.6.7
85. Dalvie et al., supra note 65, at 54 tbl.7.
86. FRIDGE/UNITAR, supra note 65, at 23 tbl.6.8
87. Dalvie et al., supra note 65, at 55 tbl.8.
88. Hazard Communication, 77 Fed. Reg. 17,574, 17,579 (Mar. 26, 2012) (internal quotation mark omitted).
89. Linda S. Jaynes & David B. Boles, The Effect of Symbols on Warning Compliance, 1990 PROC. HUM. FACTORS SOC’Y 34TH ANN. MEETING 984-985.
90. U.K. DEP’T OF HEALTH ET AL., GUIDE TO CREATING A FRONT OF PACK (FOP) NUTRITION LABEL FOR PRE-PACKED PRODUCTS SOLD THROUGH RETAIL OUTLETS 5-6 (2013)
91. Sally Malam et al., BRITISH MKT. RESEARCH BUREAU, COMPREHENSION AND USE OF UK NUTRITION SIGNPOST LABELLING SCHEMES 19-20, 21 & fig.2.3 (2009).
92. Sally Malam et al., BRITISH MKT. RESEARCH BUREAU, COMPREHENSION AND USE OF UK NUTRITION SIGNPOST LABELLING SCHEMES—TECHNICAL ANNEX 21-28 (2009).
93. Malam et al. supra note 78, at 6
94. Malam et al., supra note 78, at 21 fig.2.3.
95. Craswell, supra note 60, at 675-76.
96. Supra notes 59-60 and accompanying text.
97. Malam et al., supra note 78, at 21 fig.2.3.
98. J. Craig Andrews et al., Is Simpler Always Better? Consumer Evaluations of Front-of-Package Nutrition Symbols, 30 J. PUB. POL’Y & MARKETING 175, 178, 184 tbl.3B (2011).
99. Beales, Craswell & Salop, supra note 1, at 530.
100. Ian Ayres et al., Race Effects on eBay, RAND J. ECON. (forthcoming 2015) (manuscript at 1, 7), available at http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Jolls_RaceEffectsoneBay.pdf (reporting the results of a study involving online auctions of baseball cards held either by an African American hand or by a white hand).
101. Ticks Spreading Through Ontario, Raising Fears of Lyme Disease, CTV NEWS, http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/ticks-spreading-through-ontario-raising-fears-of-lyme-disease-1.1890054 (last updated June 27, 2014, 6:35 PM EDT).
102. Charles Tijus et al., The Design, Understanding and Usage of Pictograms, in WRITTEN DOCUMENTS IN THE WORKPLACE 17-18 (Denis Alamargot et al. eds., 2007).
103. Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 765 (1976).
104. Infra notes 134-37 and accompanying text.
105. Disc. Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States, 674 F.3d 509, 526 (6th Cir. 2012) (Clay, J., dissenting in part).
106. Infra note 147 and accompanying text.
107. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food & Drug Admin., 696 F.3d 1205, 1222-23 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Rogers, J., dissenting).
108. Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771-72 (1976).
109. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 650 (1985).
110. Post, supra note 12, at 872-73 (citing cases).
111. Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 652 n.14.
112. Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. SEC, 748 F.3d 359, 363, 372 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (requiring that legally required communications for firms using “conflict minerals” “directly and mate-rially advance[]” the objectives of the conflict minerals “disclosure regime” (citing Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 564-66 (1980))), reh’g granted, No. 13-5252, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21753 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 18, 2014). But cf. Am. Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 760 F.3d 18, 22-23 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that “[t]o the extent that” National Association of Manufacturers declines to ap-ply the “reasonably related” standard to legally required communications that are not target-ed to “correcting deception, we now overrule [it]” (emphasis added)).
113. Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651 (quoting In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 201 (1982)) (inter-nal quotation mark omitted).
114. Disc. Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States, 674 F.3d 509, 526, 528 (6th Cir. 2012) (Clay, J., dissenting in part) (emphasis added).
115. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 266, 273-74 (D.D.C.) (emphasis added) (quoting Entm’t Software Ass’n v. Blagojevich, 469 F.3d 641, 652 (7th Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation mark omitted), aff’d, 696 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
116. Supra note 47 (noting a question as to the continued viability of R.J. Reynolds in light of the subsequent decision in American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 760 F.3d 18, 22-23 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc)).
117. Nonnemaker et al., supra note 52, app. C2 at 1 tbl.C-1, 4 tbl.C-2, 8 tbl.C-3, 11 tbl.C-4, 14 tbl.C-5, 17 tbl.C-6, 27 tbl.C-9
118. Supra notes 55-57 and accompanying text.
119. R.J. Reynolds, 845 F. Supp. 2d at 273 n.13 (internal quotation mark omitted).
120. Tushnet, Supra note 49, at 686.
121. Post, supra note 12, at 909 n.183.
122. Tushnet, Supra note 49, at 691 (quoting Michael Meyer, Recovering Reality: Errol Morris Takes On Abu Ghraib, COLUM. JOURNALISM REV., Mar.-Apr. 2008, at 53, 54) (internal quotation marks omitted).
123. Noni’s Story of Fighting Cancer, NONIGLYKOS.COM, http://www.noniglykos.com/nonis_story_of_fighting_cancer.htm (last visited June 8, 2015)
124. Young Dying Smokers Share Nightmares Online, TOBACCO.ORG, http://archive.tobacco.org/news/264911.html (last visited June 8, 2015).
125. With respect to legally required communications related to abortion, the Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have, applying Planned Parenthood of Southeast-ern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), rejected recent constitutional challenges to such communications
126. See Tex. Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v. Lakey, 667 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2012)
127. Planned Parenthood of Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds, 686 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2012) (en banc)
128. Because Texas Medical Providers and Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota reside within their own doctrinal structure, see, e.g., Tex. Med. Providers, 667 F.3d at 577 (“If the disclosures are truthful and non-misleading, and if they would not violate the woman’s privacy right under the Casey plurality opinion, then Appellees would, by means of their First Amendment claim, essentially trump the bal-ance Casey struck between women’s rights and the states’ prerogatives.”)
129. Tushnet, supra note 19, at 2418 (“Perhaps it’s too much to hope that abortion jurisprudence will bear any relationship to the rest of First Amendment law.”), they are not addressed further in this Article.
130. Sources cited supra note 126.
131. Sources cited supra note 127.
132. Tushnet, Supra note 19, at 2411.
133. Disc. Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States, 674 F.3d 509-565 (6th Cir. 2012) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation mark omitted).
134. Calo, Supra note 8, at 1069 (noting that required disclosure of effects of making minimum payments on credit card obligations may “implicitly condemn and reduce a specific practice that is profitable for credit card [firms] but likely has a negative impact on most consumers”)
135. Goodman, Supra note 12, at 546 (suggesting that requiring sugar content to appear on front-of-package food labels not only provides factual information about sugar content, but also communicates an evaluative conclusion that sugar is “special among ingredients”)
136. Post, Supra note 12, at 915 (noting that nutritional disclosure requirements “implicitly signal that members of the public ought to pay attention to their health when purchasing food”).
137. Am. Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 760 F.3d 18, 21, 27 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc).
138. Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 559 U.S. 229 (2010).
139. Tushnet, supra note 19, at 2395 n.9 (alteration in original) (quoting Motion in Limine Two, State v. Powell, No. I-CR086639B (Cir. Crim. Ct. Williamson Cnty., Tenn. May 22, 2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
140. Goodman, Supra note 12, at 517 (emphasis added).
141. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985).
142. Disc. Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States, 674 F.3d 509, 526, 528 (6th Cir. 2012) (Clay, J., dissenting in part).
143. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food & Drug Admin., 696 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
144. Supra note 47 (noting a question as to the continued viability of R.J. Reyn-olds in light of the subsequent decision in American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 760 F.3d 18, 22-23 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc)).
145. R.J. Reynolds, 696 F.3d at 1212.
146. Spirit Airlines, 687 F.3d at 413.
147. R.J. Reynolds, 696 F.3d at 1228 (Rogers, J., dissenting).
148. Bonnie, Supra note 13, at 616 (internal quotation marks omitted).
149. Sources cited supra note 126.
150. Leslie Gielow Jacobs, Compelled Commercial Speech as Compelled Consent Speech, 29 J.L. & POL. 517-523 (2014).
151. Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 559 U.S. 229-251 (2010).
152. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998; Responsible Borrower Protection Act; and Con-sumer Lenders and Borrowers Bankruptcy Accountability Act of 1998, Part III: Hearing Be-fore the H. Subcomm. on Commercial & Admin. Law, 105th Cong. 94 (1998) (attachment to prepared statement of Jeffrey A. Tassey, Senior Vice President, Government and Legal Af-fairs, American Financial Services Association).
153. Milavetz, 559 U.S. at 251 (citation omitted) (quoting Zauderer v. Office of Disci-plinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 652 (1985)).
154. Given the sustained focus of the discussion in Part III on empirical approaches to factual informedness, a natural question is whether empirical evidence might also be used to assess effects beyond those related to informedness. As noted above, empirical studies of communications’ effects often obtain information about, for instance, how “gory” respond-ents think a hazard is. See supra note 24. It is difficult, however, to envision any metric by which effects beyond effects of factual informedness could be measured reliably. Although, for instance, a finding that a communication reduces the proportion of respondents who ex-press agreement with the factually inaccurate statement “If I have smoked a pack of ciga-rettes a day for more than 20 years, there’s little health benefit to me quitting smoking” pro-vides at least reasonably reliable support for increased factual informedness with the communication, it is quite unclear what one should infer from, say, a statistically significant difference in the proportion of respondents who view product hazards as “gory.” Such a dif-ference might result solely from increased informedness of the facts of the hazard, might be largely unrelated to such an increase in informedness, or might represent a mix of informedness and noninformedness effects.