organization as defined by the board or one of the recognized bestially areas recognized by the american dental association the statute is not a complete ban commercial speech because at least sufficient alternative avenues in which practice implant tolerance or that he practices implant dentistry or has a practice limited to implants if he also includes the term a disclaimer general dentist the statute also  and peel the lawyer says i want to say that i'm certified by the national board of trial advocacy or something like that credential an organ yes i but i don't see anything until saying that some other agency is entitled to say how much education as required and it's it's just that it has to be  rigorous let's say that that all right there's no else there's no a da certified program for employment dentistry but we want to do specialised and if you're not an idiot reckon i specialise there is an alternative avenue the california recognize and you have to have four things you have to have died after training you have to have clinical experience you have to have  proper for the district court in summary judgment to get him to say i'm not giving it much weight well i think i don't think that was proper just to court properly admitted it i think the w is to the trier of fact but the court even though it did give it a little weight it failed to recognize that it was understood viewed there was no material issue and what they were disputing the reliability of that of the survey data  happened here you submitted  that surveys studies but not that they come back and they say you know they try to get excluded on evidence or reasons it's not correct they attack the methodology your state judge this just isn't lot yes ok well i'd like to just quickly address the alleged errors first the doctor came in surveyed her for males and females fifty percent of the respondents were female and secondly they said that they failed to target people actually seeking implants dentistry at the mall survey they targeted the general public these are the type of people who would see ads generally we didn't confine the surveys to only those people certified organ and i have five minutes left disclaimer that the lower court recommended is impractical for various reasons first of all it's very long to put that on a business card how do you put that disclaimer it's not it's not simple what is it mean that your  r not recognized by the board that doesn't answer the question of whether yours or or a general death and also the disclaimer has at that added can it puts this organization and others disclaimer very claim which has been tested other states such as louisiana it just makes common sense if you have a disclaimer general dentist you're not going to confuse it with the other advertising chemistry we have about forty five licensed practicing dentist or five thousand and united states represented by those three organizations so we certainly don't have an analogy with pain management and we certainly don't have any analogy with bogus credentials we're talking even peel there being a general dentistry cosmetic dentistry implant industry that is valuable information the public in california needs to hear when you can get out of dental school in california get a license and you any kind of dentistry surgery perry docs aid you specialty areas as well as non special areas such as implant dentistry forensic history cosmetic dentistry no prerequisite standards if the state's interest is protecting the public should rand ever ties to this kind of credential but they use the opposite i can come to i say i because i'm a licensed and california could come to california get a license before pay jad dental implants frank record i've never placed one that we perfectly legal it's about playing field impose a disclaimer on a credential that's fine general dentist don't put some arbitrary hurdle of it must be based on formal full time post graduate education and then say ok that's a that's the minimal fit required and go ahead and do it as long as you meet that arbitrary standard that's simply shouting in the back door which you act like you're not closing the front door peel board certified civil trial specialist let us tell the public truth our credentials based upon objective leave verifiable information which they can easily ascertained by asking a doctor or by going to the internet i don't think the public in california  says apparently california fell association does and i might note counsel needs medication of something in the legislative history i don't think you'll find anything in the legislative history in this case well it looks to me and you know i'm going just misled but then the less you can say they're tempted to use service information which seems to be permissible far as i can tell your honor they tented and i think the lower court was generous in his i'm not sure the sec to the studies we had no opportunity to distract them because they were submitted after discovery cut off said no need to reopen discovery the really if you don't muster up to what's required under central hudson they don't there will fully inadequate except for showing perhaps a competitive advantage which may in fact be justified and then if our court and just looking at a self serving affidavit from ph d living with the service allegedly represent said view we think it shows  yesterday to let me tell you what was wrong about your case so you can tell me where on wall they argue that what you want to do is misleading you do not you say they are reasons to question the credibility of that half normally of the result of that is a trial is it not why not in this case why does that not mean we've got to have a trial in this case weight at all to this evidence are or no rational trier of fact could find confusion in the public from this evidence but i don't i don't i don't know exactly what he said and asked to again judge cox potentially confusing again what consumer is going to think that fellow american academy implant dentistry or fellow american academy of cosmetic dentistry is a specialist first of all one of the surveyed people of the two hundred telephone survey admitted there was no definition of specialist my question to him was that it's in the record for all you know those people thought specialist meant flaw but in any event regardless wouldn't general dentist those two words i could clear to the world i mean i suspect we could get a survey that found out the public doesn't know what d m v means or d i think a survey can accomplish anything you want to accomplish depending on who's paying for it but again a reasonable disclaimer general dentist no problem we think that would be perfectly  fine just lastly we have serious concerns about the quality and quantity of evidence it should be required of the state to show that the restriction dance advances and perhaps least restrictive way and they seek to achieve in this case not confusing the public we don't think an arbitrary hurdle for time advanced education is real because as evidence indicates why is that arbitrary not based on anything  are you a lawyer gets out of school or a dentist gets out of school if you want to you know expose yourself to increase study in the states or planning or come a law or implant dentistry you go through c e courses you join private organizations that are espousing that particular area practice you learn you go through their testing you go through the credential process that means something the public would benefit by knowing what that credential is so you set an arbitrary standard of formal post graduate can do advance yourself through c e just like the state of california requires twenty five hours each year for the licensure you obviously believe it means something as handsome as the dentist but do it in a fo sham it would pain pain management five thousand people are not even licensed they don't have the licensed medical professionals eighty percent grandfather and even they can say by the agency's approval people and i really that was probably the probabilities all that other stuff but you know one of the things that came out that struck me was its diplomats american board of oral implant ology slash implant dentistry and the public seem to be at least  think about board certified we're thinking like the doctors why doesn't that sort of suggest some confusion on the part of the public should suggest what it is that some born certified them in this area what does it mean what are the predicate requirements ask your doctor ask your dentist or look it up on the internet it's information from which the public can gather more information but if you your honor go to the yellow i your honor i would assume that people seeking legal services when they see board certified civil trial specialists national board of trial advocacy probably think the same thing only in legal conte and people seem to resolve that and i guess if there were people being maimed in illinois resolve this around the country at this point time after this many years something would be revisited but that clearly hasn't been the case is there any requirement peel in central hudson confusion itself does not equate to real the much more harm and i think the courts are required more than just hypothetical conjecture of potential harm you're absolutely right the public if you ask them about any credential depending even if it's an objective lead on sort of a properly done probability study i suspect the public would be confused about many things how that equates to harm has not been established where you're really asking them that we hold as a matter of  all that the public could not be confused by this is that is that what you're suggesting i don't i don't think that's that's all we suggest or are we simply like you to that's what it sounded like oh no the public can be confused by many things i'm not suggesting that these studies scientifically demonstrate that but i will tell you i can look in a phone book and not understand credentials and be confused by those credentials well i'd be harmed by my confusion i think that's a different issue well tail what's involved and come away with some important information relative to making an informed choice as relates to dentistry thank you thank you like a reservist one time one thirty seconds to conclude i know pick up where we left off we're not staying there or stam or borg clone bogus organization or just not bona fide under the statute and that it's not an arbitrary standard that's modeled after the code a standard we need in order to be a specialist you have to have a formal full time post dental school program that you complete it with regard to  what evidence the court could consider not only the survey evidence shows confusion but the anecdotal evidence and bring them to the er for declarations showing consumer confusion and consumers who even in the case applying strict scrutiny to justify restrictions slowly on history consensus and simple common sense dr potts ads are truthful but they're misleading truthful information can be misleading in the way that or manner in which they are presented statute does not prohibit the content of truthful information just the manner or way that it is presented so when it's misleading back that is misleading as undisputed it makes common sense that will make in the dictionary means you're a specialist to be extent that a potentially misleading statement of a private sort of occasion or specialization could confuse consumers the state might consider screening certifying organizations or requiring a certifying organizations and which a bona fide credential can be conferred were advertised and then we have the disclaimer which is clear precise doesn't add any