- News>
- Others
Nike being sued for exploiting Asian labour
Washington DC, Apr 24: In an important free-speech case for businesses, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether Nike Inc. can be sued for false advertising over a publicity campaign to defend itself against accusations that Asian sweatshops made its footwear. On Wednesday the high court heard arguments from both sides.
Washington DC, Apr 24: In an important free-speech case for businesses, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether Nike Inc. can be sued for false advertising over a publicity campaign to defend itself against accusations that Asian sweatshops made its footwear. On Wednesday the high court heard arguments from both sides.
In Washington DC on Wednesday (April 23, 2003) the high court heard arguments on whether Nike's statements about its labour practices deserved full First Amendment protection under the U.S. Constitution and whether the lawsuit against it should be dismissed or go forward.
The closely watched case, which has attracted a large number of briefs on both sides, could help determine the extent of free-speech protection for businesses when companies issue news releases or make other statements to defend themselves.
The case began in 1998 when Marc Kasky, a consumer activist in San Francisco, sued Nike under California law, claiming the company mislead the public about working conditions for its Vietnamese, Chinese, and Indonesian labourers. The lawsuit claimed Nike knew workers were subjected to physical punishment and sexual abuse, endured dangerous working conditions and were often unable to earn a "living wage" despite workdays that could be 14 hours long.
The suit also alleges that Nike mounted a false advertising and public relations campaign, portraying itself as a model of corporate responsibility.
Nike has denied the accusations, arguing the case should be dismissed because all the statements cited in the lawsuit were protected as free speech. But the California Supreme Court ruled that Nike's corporate statements could be regulated as commercial speech, allowing the lawsuit to proceed to trial.
After the hearing to a packed audience, including political and corporate heavy hitters for both sides, lawyers spoke to the media in front of the Supreme Court.
Laurence Tribe was one of the lawyers who addressed the court, said the case is about Nike or any other businesses right to free speech.
"It is not about something that is almost but not quite an advertisement, this is about press releases, letters to the editor, answers to charges that are made publicly saying, you are exploiting workers in the third world and Nike, comes back and says that's what you say and this is what we say," Tribe said.
Speaking in behalf of Marc Kasky, attorney Patric Coughlin said the case is about truthful advertising.
"In the commercial speech arena you can't lie. You can't lie about your products, and that is what this case is about," Coughlin said.
During the hearing, Nike protesters stood in front of the Supreme Court, with signs blasting the company for its business practices.
The Supreme Court will deliberate, with a ruling expected by the end of June.
Bureau Report
Nike has denied the accusations, arguing the case should be dismissed because all the statements cited in the lawsuit were protected as free speech. But the California Supreme Court ruled that Nike's corporate statements could be regulated as commercial speech, allowing the lawsuit to proceed to trial.
After the hearing to a packed audience, including political and corporate heavy hitters for both sides, lawyers spoke to the media in front of the Supreme Court.
Laurence Tribe was one of the lawyers who addressed the court, said the case is about Nike or any other businesses right to free speech.
"It is not about something that is almost but not quite an advertisement, this is about press releases, letters to the editor, answers to charges that are made publicly saying, you are exploiting workers in the third world and Nike, comes back and says that's what you say and this is what we say," Tribe said.
Speaking in behalf of Marc Kasky, attorney Patric Coughlin said the case is about truthful advertising.
"In the commercial speech arena you can't lie. You can't lie about your products, and that is what this case is about," Coughlin said.
During the hearing, Nike protesters stood in front of the Supreme Court, with signs blasting the company for its business practices.
The Supreme Court will deliberate, with a ruling expected by the end of June.
Bureau Report