Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02529/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02529-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CTIA – THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION®,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA,

et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-15-2529 EMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION; AND GRANTING

NRDC’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE AMICUS BRIEF

(Docket Nos. 4, 36)

As alleged in its complaint, Plaintiff CTIA – The Wireless Association (“CTIA”) is a notfor-profit corporation that “represents all sectors of the wireless industry, including but not limited

to manufacturers of cell phones and accessories, providers of wireless services, and sellers of

wireless services, handsets, and accessories.” Compl. ¶ 18. Included among CTIA’s members are

cell phone retailers. See Compl. ¶ 19. CTIA has filed suit against the City of Berkeley and its City

Manager in her official capacity (collectively “City” or “Berkeley”), challenging a City ordinance

that requires cell phone retailers to provide a certain notice regarding radiofrequency (“RF”) energy

emitted by cell phones to any customer who buys or leases a cell phone. According to CTIA, the

ordinance is preempted by federal law and further violates the First Amendment. Currently pending

before the Court is CTIA’s motion for a preliminary injunction in which it seeks to enjoin

enforcement of the ordinance. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions,

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The National Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) has filed a motion for leave to file an

amicus brief in conjunction with the preliminary injunction proceedings. This motion is hereby

GRANTED. CTIA has failed to show that it would be prejudiced by the Court’s consideration of

the brief, particularly because CTIA had sufficient time to submit a proposed opposition to NRDC’s

proposed amicus brief.

2

as well as the oral argument of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the

motion.1

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. City Ordinance

RF energy is “‘a form of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by cell phones.’” In re

Reassessment of FCC Radiofrequency Exposure Limits & Policies, 28 F.C.C. Rcd. 3498, 3585 (Mar.

29, 2013) [hereinafter “2013 FCC Reassessment”]. The City ordinance at issue concerns RF energy

emitted by cell phones. 

The ordinance at issue is found in Chapter 9.96 of the Berkeley Municipal Code. It provides

in relevant part as follows:

A. A Cell phone retailer shall provide to each customer who buys

or leases a Cell phone a notice containing the following

language:

The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the

following notice:

To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that

cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure

guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or

shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON

and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed

the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. 

This potential risk is greater for children. Refer to the

instructions in your phone or user manual for

information about how to use your phone safely.

B. The notice required by this Section shall either be provided to

each customer who buys or leases a Cell phone or shall be

prominently displayed at any point of sale where Cell phones

are purchased or leased. If provided to the customer, the notice

shall include the City’s logo, shall be printed on paper that is

no less than 5 inches by 8 inches in size, and shall be printed in

no smaller than a 18-point font. The paper on which the notice

is printed may contain other information in the discretion of the

Cell phone retailer, as long as that information is distinct from

the notice language required by subdivision (A) of this Section. 

If prominently displayed at a point of sale, the notice shall

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 SAR is “a measure of the amount of RF energy absorbed by the body from cell phones.” 

CTIA – The Wireless Ass’n v. City & County of San Francisco, 827 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1056 (N.D.

Cal. 2011) (Alsup, J.).

3 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.1093 (setting RF energy exposure limits).

3

include the City’s logo, be printed on a poster no less than

8-1/2 by 11 inches in size, and shall be printed in no small than

a 28-point font. The City shall make its logo available to be

incorporated in such notices.

Berkeley Mun. Code § 9.96.030. 

The stated findings and purpose behind the notice requirement are as follows:

A. Requirements for the testing of cell phones were established by

the federal government [i.e., the Federal Communications

Commission (“FCC”)] in 1996.

B. These requirements established “Specific Absorption Rates”

(SAR[2]) for cell phones.[3]

C. The protocols for testing the SAR for cell phones carried on a

person’s body assumed that they would be carried a small

distance away from the body, e.g., in a holster or belt clip,

which was the common practice at that time. Testing of cell

phones under these protocols has generally been conducted

based on an assumed separation of 10-15 millimeters.

D. To protect the safety of their consumers, manufacturers

recommend that their cell phones be carried away from the

body, or be used in conjunction with hands-free devices.

E. Consumers are not generally aware of these safety

recommendations.

F. Currently, it is much more common for cell phones to be

carried in pockets or other locations rather than holsters or belt

clips, resulting in much smaller separation distances than the

safety recommendations specify.

G. Some consumers may change their behavior to better protect

themselves and their children if they were aware of these safety

recommendations.

H. While the disclosures and warnings that accompany cell

phones generally advise consumers not to wear them against

their bodies, e.g., in pockets, waistbands, etc., these disclosures

and warnings are often buried in fine print, are not written in

easily understood language, or are accessible only by looking

for the information on the device itself.

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

I. The purpose of this Chapter is to assure that consumers have

the information they need to make their own choices about the

extent and nature of their exposure to radio frequency

radiation.

Berkeley Mun. Code § 9.96.010.

Prior to issuing the ordinance, the City conducted a telephone survey on the topic of cell

phones. Data was collected from 459 Berkeley registered voters. See Jensen Decl. ¶ 6. Seventy

percent of those surveyed were not “aware that the government’s radiation tests to assure the safety

of cell phones assume that a cell phone would not be carried against your body, but would instead be

held at least 1- to 15 millimeters from your body.” Jensen Decl., Ex. A (survey and results).

B. FCC Pronouncements

As indicated by the above, the FCC has set RF energy exposure standards for cell phones. 

The present RF energy exposure limits were established in 1996. See generally FCC Consumer

Guide, Wireless Devices and Health Concerns, available at

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns (last visited September 17, 2015)

[hereinafter “FCC Consumer Guide”]. This was done pursuant to a provision in the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TCA”) that instructed the agency “to prescribe and make

effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.” 104 P.L. 104

(1996).

The FCC has also issued some pronouncements regarding RF energy emission and cell

phones, three of which are discussed briefly below.

1. FCC KDB Guidelines

First, as CTIA alleges in its complaint,

[t]he FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology Knowledge

Database (“KDB”) advises cell phone manufacturers [as opposed to

cell phone retailers] to include in their user manual a description of

how the user can operate the phone under the same conditions for

which its SAR was measured. See FCC KDB, No. 447498, General

RF Exposure Guidelines, § 4.2.2(4). 

Compl. ¶ 75; see also 2013 FCC Reassessment, 28 F.C.C. Rcd. 3498, 3587 (stating that

“[m]anufacturers have been encouraged since 2001 to include information in device manuals to

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 4 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

make consumers aware of the need to maintain the body-worn distance – by using appropriate

accessories if they want to ensure that their actual exposure does not exceed the SAR measurement

obtained during testing”). 

The relevant guideline from the FCC’s KDB Office provides as follows:

Specific information must be included in the operating manuals to

enable users to select body-worn accessories that meet the minimum

test separation distance requirements. Users must be fully informed of

the operating requirements and restrictions, to the extent that the

typical user can easily understand the information, to acquire the

required body-worn accessories to maintain compliance. Instructions

on how to place and orient a device in body-worn accessories, in

accordance with the test results, should also be included in the user

instructions. All supported body-worn accessory operating

configurations must be clearly disclosed to users through conspicuous

instructions in the user guide and user manual to ensure unsupported

operations are avoided. . . .

FCC KDB, No. 447498, General RF Exposure Guidelines, § 4.2.2(4), available at

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?switch=P&id=20676 (last visited

September 17, 2015).

2. FCC Consumer Guide

The FCC currently has a FCC Consumer Guide regarding wireless devices and health

concerns. In the FCC Consumer Guide, the agency states, inter alia, as follows:

• “Several US government agencies and international organizations work cooperatively to

monitor research on the health effects of RF exposure. According to the FDA and the World

Health Organization (WHO), among other organizations, to date, the weight of scientific

evidence has not effectively linked exposure to radio frequency energy from mobile devices

with any known health problems.” FCC Consumer Guide.

• “Some health and safety interest groups have interpreted certain reports to suggest that

wireless device use may be linked to cancer and other illnesses, posing potentially greater

risks for children than adults. While these assertions have gained increased public attention,

currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and

cancer or other illnesses. Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree

that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF safety

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 5 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

standards than is currently used. The FCC closely monitors all of these study results. 

However, at this time, there is no basis on which to establish a different safety threshold than

our current requirements.” Id.

• “Even though no scientific evidence currently establishes a definite link between wireless

device use and cancer or other illnesses, and even though all cell phones must meet

established federal standards for exposure to RF energy, some consumers are skeptical of the

science and/or the analysis that underlies the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines. Accordingly,

some parties recommend taking measures to further reduce exposure to RF energy. The

FCC does not endorse the need for these practices, but provides information on some

simple steps that you can take to reduce your exposure to RF energy from cell phones. For

example, wireless devices only emit RF energy when you are using them and, the closer the

device is to you, the more energy you will absorb.” Id. (emphasis in original).

• “Some parties recommend that you consider the reported SAR value of wireless devices.

However, comparing the SAR of different devices may be misleading. First, the actual SAR

varies considerably depending upon the conditions of use. The SAR value used for FCC

approval does not account for the multitude of measurements taken during the testing. 

Moreover, cell phones constantly vary their power to operate at the minimum power

necessary for communications; operation at maximum power occurs infrequently. Second,

the reported highest SAR values of wireless devices do not necessarily indicate that a user is

exposed to more or less RF energy from one cell phone than from another during normal use

(see our guide on SAR and cell phones). Third, the variation in SAR from one mobile device

to the next is relatively small compared to the reduction that can be achieved by the measures

described above. Consumers should remember that all wireless devices are certified to meet

the FCC maximum SAR standards, which incorporate a considerable safety margin.” Id.

3. 2013 FCC Reassessment

Finally, in 2013, the FCC issued its Reassessment. See generally 2013 FCC Reassessment,

28 F.C.C. Rcd. 3498. One of the components of the Reassessment was a Notice of Inquiry,

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 6 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

“request[ing] comment to determine whether our RF exposure limits and policies need to be

reassessed.” Id. at 3500. 

We adopted our present exposure limits in 1996, based on guidance

from federal safety, health, and environmental agencies using

recommendations published separately by the National Council on

Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). Since 1996, the

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

(ICNIRP) has developed a recommendation supported by the World

Health Organization (WHO), and the IEEE has revised its

recommendations several times, while the NCRP has continued to

support its recommendation as we use it in our current rules. In the

Inquiry, we ask whether our exposure limits remain appropriate given

the differences in the various recommendations that have developed

and recognizing additional progress in research subsequent to the

adoption of our existing exposure limits.

Id. at 3501. 

The FCC included the following comments in its Reassessment:

• “Since the Commission is not a health and safety agency, we defer to other organizations and

agencies with respect to interpreting the biological research necessary to determine what

levels are safe. As such, the Commission invites health and safety agencies and the public to

comment on the propriety of our general present limits and whether additional precautions

may be appropriate in some cases, for example with respect to children. We recognize our

responsibility to both protect the public from established adverse effects due to exposure to

RF energy and allow industry to provide telecommunications services to the public in the

most efficient and practical manner possible. In the Inquiry we ask whether any

precautionary action would be either useful or counterproductive, given that there is a lack

of scientific consensus about the possibility of adverse health effects at exposure levels at or

below our existing limits. Further, if any action is found to be useful, we inquire whether it

could be efficient and practical.” Id. at 3501-02. 

• “In the Inquiry we ask questions about several other issues related to public information,

precautionary measures, and evaluation procedures. Specifically, we seek comment on the

feasibility of evaluating portable RF sources without a separation distance when worn on the

body to ensure compliance with our limits under present-day usage conditions. We ask

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 7 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 Some contend that RF energy can have both thermal biological effects and nonthermal

biological effects. See, e.g., Miller Decl. ¶¶ 7, 10-14 (noting that “RF radiation is non-ionizing

radiation,” that “[n]on-ionizing radiation can harm through thermal effects, usually only in high

dosage,” and that “[t]here is an increasingly clear body of evidence that non-ionizing radiation can

harm through non-thermal effects as well,” including cancer; adding that the evidence indicates that

“RF fields are not just a possible human carcinogen but a probable human carcinogen”). The safety

factor built in by the FCC seems to be addressed to the thermal biological effects only.

8

whether the Commission should consistently require either disclosure of the maximum SAR

value or other more reliable exposure data in a standard format – perhaps in manuals, at

point-of-sale, or on a website.” Id. at 3502.

• “The Commission has a responsibility to ‘provide a proper balance between the need to

protect the public and workers from exposure to potentially harmful RF electromagnetic

fields and the requirement that industry be allowed to provide telecommunications services

to the public in the most efficient and practical manner possible.’ The intent of our exposure

limits is to provide a cap that both protects the public based on scientific consensus and

allows for efficient and practical implementation of wireless services. The present

Commission exposure limit is a ‘bright-line rule.’ That is, so long as exposure levels are

below a specified limit value, there is no requirement to further reduce exposure. The limit

is readily justified when it is based on known adverse health effects having a well-defined

threshold, and the limit includes prudent additional safety factors (e.g., setting the limit

significantly below the threshold where known adverse health effects may begin to occur). 

Our current RF exposure guidelines are an example of such regulation, including a

significant ‘safety’ factor, whereby the exposure limits are set at a level on the order of 50

times below the level at which adverse biological effects have been observed in laboratory

animals as a result of tissue heating resulting from RF exposure. This ‘safety’ factor can

well accommodate a variety of variables such as different physical characteristics and

individual sensitivities – and even the potential for exposures to occur in excess of our limits

without posing a health hazard to humans.”4

 Id. at 3582.

• “Despite this conservative bright-line limit, there has been discussion of going even further

to guard against the possibility of risks from non-thermal biological effects, even though

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 8 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

such risks have not been established by scientific research. As such, some parties have

suggested measures of ‘prudent avoidance’ – undertaking only those avoidance activities

which carry modest costs.” Id. at 3582-83 (emphasis added).

• “Given the complexity of the information on research regarding non-thermal biological

effects, taking extra precautions in this area may fundamentally be qualitative and may not

be well-served by the adoption of lower specific exposure limits without any known,

underlying biological mechanism. Additionally, adoption of extra precautionary measures

may have the unintended consequence of ‘opposition to progress and the refusal of

innovation, ever greater bureaucracy, . . . [and] increased anxiety in the population.’ 

Nevertheless, we invite comment as to whether precautionary measures may be appropriate

for certain locations which would not affect the enforceability of our existing exposure

limits, as well as any analytical justification for such measures.” Id. at 3583.

• “We significantly note that extra precautionary efforts by national authorities to reduce

exposure below recognized scientifically-based limits is considered by the WHO to be

unnecessary but acceptable so long as such efforts do not undermine exposure limits based

on known adverse effects. Along these lines, we note that although the Commission supplies

information to consumers on methods to reduce exposure from cell phones, it has also stated

that it does not endorse the need for nor set a target value for exposure reduction, and we

seek comment on whether these policies are appropriate. We also observe that the FDA has

stated that, ‘available scientific evidence – including World Health Organization (WHO)

findings released May 17, 2010 – shows no increased health risk due to radiofrequency (RF)

energy, a form of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by cell phones.’ At the same

time, the FDA has stated that ‘[a]lthough the existing scientific data do not justify FDA

regulatory actions, FDA has urged the cell phone industry to take a number of steps,

including ... [d]esign[ing] cell phones in a way that minimizes any RF exposure to the user.’ 

We seek information on other similar hortatory efforts and comment on the utility and

propriety of such messaging as part of this Commission’s regulatory regime.” Id. at 3584-

85.

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 9 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

• “Commission calculations similar to those in Appendix D suggest that some devices may not

be compliant with our exposure limits without the use of some spacer to maintain a

separation distance when body-worn, although this conclusion is not verifiable for individual

devices since a test without a spacer has not been routinely performed during the body-worn

testing for equipment authorization. Yet, we have no evidence that this poses any significant

health risk. Commission rules specify a pass/fail criterion for SAR evaluation and equipment

authorization. However, exceeding the SAR limit does not necessarily imply unsafe

operation, nor do lower SAR quantities imply ‘safer’ operation. The limits were set with a

large safety factor, to be well below a threshold for unacceptable rises in tissue temperature. 

As a result, exposure well above the specified SAR limit should not create an unsafe

condition. We note that, even if a device is tested without a spacer, there are already certain

separations built into the SAR test setup, such as the thickness of the mannequin shell, the

thickness of the device exterior case, etc., so we seek comment on the implementation of

evaluation procedures without a spacer for the body-worn testing configuration. We also

realize that SAR measurements are performed while the device is operating at its maximum

capable power, so that given typical operating conditions, the SAR of the device during

normal use would be less than tested. In sum, using a device against the body without a

spacer will generally result in actual SAR below the maximum SAR tested; moreover, a use

that possibly results in non-compliance with the SAR limit should not be viewed with

significantly greater concern than compliant use.” Id. at 3588.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

“‘A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Network

Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, 638 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v.

Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (rejecting the position that, “when a plaintiff

demonstrates a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits, a preliminary injunction may be entered

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 10 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 CTIA has claimed only conflict preemption and not other kinds of preemption such as e.g., field preemption. See, e.g., Reply at 12-13 (arguing that the City “challenges a field preemption

argument that CTIA does not raise”) (emphasis in original).

11

based only on a ‘possibility’ of irreparable harm”)). The Ninth Circuit has held that the “serious

questions” approach survives Winter when applied as part of the four-element Winter test. In other

words, “serious questions going to the merits” and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the

plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test

are also met. See Alliance For The Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011).

B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

As noted above, the thrust of CTIA’s complaint is twofold: (1) the Berkeley ordinance is

preempted by federal law and (2) the ordinance violates the First Amendment. Thus, the Court must

evaluate the likelihood of success as to each contention. 

1. Preemption

The specific preemption argument raised by CTIA is conflict preemption.5 “Conflict

preemption is implicit preemption of state law that occurs where ‘there is an actual conflict between

state and federal law.’ Conflict preemption ‘arises when [1] ‘compliance with both federal and state

regulations is a physical impossibility,’ . . . or [2] when state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the

accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’” McClellan v. IFlow Corp., 776 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Here, CTIA puts at issue only obstacle preemption, not impossibility preemption. Under

Supreme Court law, “[w]hat is a sufficient obstacle is a matter of judgment, to be informed by

examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects.” Crosby v.

Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 373 (2000). “‘If the purpose of the [federal] act cannot

otherwise be accomplished – if its operation within its chosen field must be frustrated and its

provisions be refused their natural effect – the state law must yield to the regulation of Congress

within the sphere of its delegated power.’” Id.

In the case at bar, the federal statute at issue is the TCA, “which [inter alia] directed the FCC

to ‘make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of [RF] emissions’ within 180 days of

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 11 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

the TCA’s enactment [in 1996].” Farina, 625 F.3d at 106; see also 47 C.F.R. § 2.1093 (setting

exposure limits). CTIA argues that the purposes underlying the statute are twofold: (1) to achieve a

balance between the need to protect the public’s health and safety and the goal of providing an

efficient and practical telecommunications services for the public’s benefit and (2) to ensure

nationwide uniformity as to this balance. In support of this argument, CTIA relies on the Third

Circuit’s decision Farina v. Nokia, Inc., 625 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 2010).

The Court agrees with CTIA that Farina is an instructive case with respect to the purposes

underlying the above TCA provision. In Farina, the plaintiff sued on the ground that “cell phones,

as currently manufactured, are unsafe to be operated without headsets because the customary manner

in which they are used – with the user holding the phone so that the antenna is positioned next to his

head – exposes the user to dangerous amounts of radio frequency (‘RF’) radiation.” Id. at 104. The

Third Circuit held that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was subject to obstacle preemption. The court noted

first that, “although [the plaintiff] disavow[ed] any challenge to the FCC’s RF standards, that is the

essence of his complaint. . . . In order for [the plaintiff] to succeed, he necessarily must establish that

cell phones abiding by the FCC’s SAR guidelines are unsafe to operate without a headset.” Id. at

122. The court then concluded that there was obstacle preemption, particularly because “regulatory

situations in which an agency is required to strike a balance between competing statutory objectives

lend themselves to a finding of conflict preemption.” Id. at 123. 

The reason why state law conflicts with federal law in these balancing

situations is plain. When Congress charges an agency with balancing

competing objectives, it intends the agency to use its reasoned

judgment to weigh the relevant considerations and determine how best

to prioritize between these objectives. Allowing state law to impose a

different standard permits a re-balancing of those considerations. A

state-law standard that is more protective of one objective may result

in a standard that is less protective of others.

Id. The FCC was tasked with a balancing act – not only to “protect[] the health and safety of the

public, but also [to] ensur[e] the rapid development of an efficient and uniform network, one that

provides effective and widely accessible service at a reasonable cost.” Id. at 125. “Were the FCC’s

standards to constitute only a regulatory floor upon which state law can build, juries could rebalance the FCC’s statutory objectives and inhibit the provision of quality nationwide service.” Id.

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 12 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

 The Court notes, however, that statement in the House Report is not clearly targeted at the

requirement that the agency make rules regarding RF energy emissions. This is because § 704 of the

TCA concerned not only this directive but also another – i.e., that the FCC “prescribe a national

policy for the siting of commercial mobile radio services facilities.” H.R. Rep. No. 104-204, at 94

(also stating that “[t]he siting of facilities cannot be denied on the basis of Radio Frequency (RF)

emission levels which are in compliance with the Commission RF emission regulated levels”).

13

Moreover, in Farina, the Third Circuit also stated that uniformity was one of the purposes

underlying the TCA:

The wireless network is an inherently national system. In order to

ensure the network functions nationwide and to preserve the balance

between the FCC’s competing regulatory objectives, both Congress

and the FCC recognized uniformity as an essential element of an

efficient wireless network. Subjecting the wireless network to a

patchwork of state standards would disrupt that uniformity and place

additional burdens on industry and the network itself.

Id. at 126. 

Finally, as noted in Farina, the legislative history for the TCA, which instructed the FCC to

“to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency

emissions,” 104 P.L. 104 (1996) (discussing § 704), includes a House Report that also indicates

uniformity is an important goal. The House Report states, inter alia: 

The Committee finds that current State and local requirements, siting

and zoning decisions by non-federal units of government, have created

an inconsistent and, at times, conflicting patchwork of requirements

which will inhibit the deployment of Personal Communications

Services (PCS) as well as the rebuilding of a digital technology-based

cellular telecommunications network. The Committee believes it is in

the national interest that uniform, consistent requirements, with

adequate safeguards of the public health and safety, be established as

soon as possible. Such requirements will ensure an appropriate

balance in policy and will speed deployment and the availability of

competitive wireless telecommunications services which ultimately

will provide consumers with lower costs as well as with a greater

range and options for such services.

H.R. Rep. No. 104-204, at 94 (1996).6

But even though Farina persuasively identifies the purposes underlying the TCA provision

at issue, the limited disclosure mandated by the Berkeley ordinance does not, with one exception,

impose an obstacle to those purposes. As noted above, the notice required by the City ordinance

states as follows:

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 13 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following

notice:

To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones

meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use

your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the

phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the

federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. This potential risk is

greater for children. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user

manual for information about how to use your phone safely.

Berkeley Mun. Code § 9.96.030(A). This disclosure, for the most part, simply refers consumers to

the fact that there are FCC standards on RF energy exposure – standards which assume a minimum

spacing of the cell phone away from the body – and advises consumers to refer to their manuals

regarding maintenance of such spacing. The disclosure mandated by the Berkeley ordinance is

consistent with the FCC’s statements and testing procedures regarding spacing. See, e.g., FCC

Consumer Guide (advising “on some simple steps that you can take to reduce your exposure to RF

energy from cell phones[;] [f]or example, wireless devices only emit RF energy when you are using

them and, the closer the device is to you, the more energy you will absorb”); 2013 FCC

Reassessment, 28 F.C.C. Rcd. at 3588 (stating that “Commission calculations . . . suggest that some

devices may not be compliant with our exposure limits without the use of some spacer to maintain a

separation distance when body-worn, although this conclusion is not verifiable for individual

devices since a test without a spacer has not been routinely performed during the body-worn testing

for equipment authorization”). It is also consistent with the FCC’s own requirement that cell phone

manufacturers disclose to consumers information and advice about spacing. See FCC KDB, No.

447498, General RF Exposure Guidelines, § 4.2.2(4). Thus, the ordinance does not ban something

the FCC authorizes or mandates. And CTIA has failed to point to any FCC pronouncement

suggesting that the agency has any objection to warning consumers about maintaining spacing

between the body and a cell phone. Moreover, the City ordinance, because it is consistent with FCC

pronouncements and directives, does not threaten national uniformity.

There is, however, one portion of the notice required by the City ordinance that is subject to

obstacle preemption – namely, the sentence “This potential risk is greater for children.” Berkeley

Mun. Code § 9.96.030(A). Notably, this sentence does not say that the potential risk may be greater

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 14 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

 At the hearing, the City argued that there is a greater potential risk because of behavioral

differences between children and adults. See Cortesi Decl. ¶¶ 5-8 (testifying, inter alia, that children

are heavy users of cell phones, that they often sleep with their phones on or next to their beds, that

they often text which leads to them keeping phones close to their bodies, etc.). The City contends

that CTIA has done nothing to refute the evidence submitted by the City on the behavioral

differences, and thus the evidence of record establishes that the potential risk is greater. This

argument, however, has little merit in light of the FCC evidence cited above, which indicates that at

most there is a scientific debate regarding the risk to children. Moreover, the wording of the notice

suggests to the general public that the danger to children arises from their inherent biological

susceptibility to RF radiation, not behavioral susceptibility.

15

for children; rather, the sentence states that the potential risk is greater. But whether the potential

risk is, in fact, greater for children is a matter of scientific debate. The City has taken the position in

this lawsuit that its notice is simply designed to reinforce a message that the FCC already requires

and make consumers aware of FCC instructions and mandates, see, e.g., Opp’n at 1, 4, but the FCC

has never made any pronouncement that there is a greater potential risk for children, and, certainly,

the FCC has not imposed different RF energy exposure limits that are applicable to children

specifically. At most, the FCC has taken note that there is a scientific debate about whether children

are potentially at greater risk. See, e.g., FCC Consumer Guide (“Some health and safety interest

groups have interpreted certain reports to suggest that wireless device use may be linked to cancer

and other illnesses, posing potentially greater risks for children than adults. While these assertions

have gained increased public attention, currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link

between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.”); 2013 FCC Reassessment, 28 F.C.C.

Rcd. at 3501 (“[T]he Commission invites health and safety agencies and the public to comment on

the propriety of our general present limits and whether additional precautions may be appropriate in

some cases, for example with respect to children.”). Importantly, however, the FCC has not

imposed different exposure limits for children nor does it mandate special warnings regarding

children’s exposure to RF radiation from cell phones. Thus, the content of the sentence – that the

potential risk is indeed greater for children compared to adults – threatens to upset the balance struck

by the FCC between encouraging commercial development of all phones and public safety, because

the Berkeley warning as worded could materially deter sales on an assumption about safety risks

which the FCC has refused to adopt or endorse.7

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 15 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

 The Court shall evaluate the ordinance as if the sentence regarding children were excised

from the text. This approach is appropriate in light of Berkeley Municipal Code § 1.01.100 which,

in effect, allows for severance. See Berkeley Mun. Code § 1.01.100 (“If any section, subsection,

sentence, clause or phrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such

decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code. The council hereby

declares that it would have passed this code, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and

phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses

or phrases had been declared invalid or unconstitutional, and if for any reason this code should be

declared invalid or unconstitutional, then the original ordinance or ordinances shall be in full force

and effect.”).

16

Accordingly, although CTIA has not demonstrated a likelihood of success or even serious

question on the merits in its preemption challenge to the main portion of the notice, it has

established a likelihood of success on its claim that the warning about children is preempted.

2. First Amendment

Having determined that the required statement, “This potential risk is greater for children,” is

likely preempted by federal law, the Court now addresses CTIA’s likelihood of success with respect

to its First Amendment challenge to the remainder of the notice.8

a. Level of Scrutiny

With respect to CTIA’s First Amendment claim, the Court must first determine what First

Amendment test should be used to evaluate the ordinance at issue. CTIA contends that strict

scrutiny must be applied because the ordinance is neither content nor viewpoint neutral. See Reed v.

Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2228, 2230 (2015) (stating that “strict scrutiny applies either when

a law is content based on its face or when the purpose and justification for the law are content

based”; adding that “[g]overnment discrimination among viewpoints . . . is a ‘more blatant’ and

‘egregious form of content discrimination’”). But in making this argument, CTIA completely

ignores the fact that the speech rights at issue here are its members’ commercial speech rights. See

Hunt v. City of L.A., 638 F.3d 703, 715 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that “[c]ommercial speech is ‘defined

as speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction’”; “‘strong support’ that the

speech should be characterized as commercial speech is found where the speech is an advertisement,

the speech refers to a particular product, and the speaker has an economic motivation”). The

Supreme Court has clearly made a distinction between commercial speech and noncommercial

speech, see, e.g., Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 562-63

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 16 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

 Ironically, the classification of speech between commercial and noncommercial is itself a

content-based distinction. Yet it cannot seriously be contended that such classification itself runs

afoul of the First Amendment. 

17

(1980) (stating that “[t]he Constitution . . . accords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to

other constitutionally guaranteed expression”); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. SEC, No. 13-5252,

2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14455, at *75-76 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 2015) (noting that, “as the Supreme

Court has emphasized, the starting premise in all commercial speech cases is the same: the First

Amendment values commercial speech for different reasons than non-commercial speech”), and

nothing in its recent opinions, including Reed, even comes close to suggesting that that wellestablished distinction is no longer valid.9

CTIA contends that, even if the commercial speech rubric is applied, the ordinance should be

subject to at least intermediate scrutiny, pursuant to Central Hudson:

If the communication is neither misleading nor related to

unlawful activity, . . . [t]he State must assert a substantial interest to be

achieved by restrictions on commercial speech. Moreover, the

regulatory technique must be in proportion to that interest. The

limitation on expression must be designed carefully to achieve the

State’s goal. Compliance with this requirement may be measured by

two criteria. First, the restriction must directly advance the state

interest involved. . . . . Second, if the governmental interest could be

served as well by a more limited restriction on commercial speech, the

excessive restrictions cannot survive.

Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 564. But as indicated by the above language, Central Hudson was

addressing restrictions on commercial speech. Here, the Court is not confronted with any

restrictions on CTIA members’ commercial speech; rather, the issue is related to compelled

disclosure of commercial speech. The Supreme Court has treated restrictions on commercial

speech differently from compelled disclosure of such speech. This difference in treatment was first

articulated in the plurality decision in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme

Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), and subsequently affirmed by the majority opinion in Milavetz,

Gallp & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 559 U.S. 229 (2010).

Because Zauderer is a critical opinion, the Court briefly discusses its holding. The plaintiff

in Zauderer was an attorney. He ran an advertisement in which he “publiciz[ed] his willingness to

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 17 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

represent women who had suffered injuries resulting from their use of a contraceptive device known

as the Dalkon Shield Intrauterine Device.” Id. at 630. In the advertisement, the plaintiff stated that

“‘[t]he case are handled on a contingent fee basis of the amount recovered. If there is no recovery,

no legal fees are owed by our clients.’” Id. at 631. Based on the advertisement, the state Office of

Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against the plaintiff, alleging that the plaintiff had violated a

disciplinary rule because the advertisement “fail[ed] to inform clients that they would be liable for

costs (as opposed to legal fees) even if their claims were unsuccessful” and therefore was deceptive. 

Id. at 633. The state supreme court agreed with the state Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The

plaintiff appealed, asserting that his First Amendment rights had been violated.

In resolving the issue, the plurality began by noting that 

[o]ur general approach to restrictions on commercial speech is . . . by

now well settled. The States and the Federal Government are free to

prevent the dissemination of commercial speech that is false,

deceptive, or misleading. Commercial speech that is not false or

deceptive and does not concern unlawful activities, however, may be

restricted only in the service of a substantial governmental interest,

and only through means that directly advance that interest [i.e., Central Hudson].

Id. at 638.

The plurality pointed out, however, that there are “material differences between disclosure

requirements and outright prohibitions on speech.” Id. at 650. While, “in some instances

compulsion to speak may be as violative of the First Amendment as prohibitions on speech,” that is

not always the case. Id. Here, the state was not “‘prescrib[ing] what shall be orthodox in politics,

religion, [etc].’”; rather, 

[t]he State has attempted only to prescribe what shall be orthodox in

commercial advertising, and its prescription has taken the form of a

requirement that appellant include in his advertising purely factual and

uncontroversial information about the terms under which his services

will be available. Because the extension of First Amendment

protection to commercial speech is justified principally by the value to

consumers of the information such speech provides, appellant’s

constitutionally protected interest in not providing any particular

factual information in his advertising is minimal. Thus, in virtually all

our commercial speech decisions to date, we have emphasized that

because disclosure requirements trench much more narrowly on an

advertiser’s interest than do flat prohibitions on speech, “[warnings]

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 18 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

or [disclaimers] might be appropriately required . . . in order to

dissipate the possibility of consumer confusion or deception.”

We do not suggest that disclosure requirements do not

implicate the advertiser’s First Amendment rights at all. We recognize

that unjustified or unduly burdensome disclosure requirements might

offend the First Amendment by chilling protected commercial speech. 

But we hold that an advertiser’s rights are adequately protected as long

as disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State’s interest

in preventing deception of consumers.

Id. at 651 (emphasis added). 

The plurality then held that this standard was satisfied in the case at hand. 

Appellant’s advertisement informed the public that “if there is no

recovery, no legal fees are owed by our clients.” The advertisement

makes no mention of the distinction between “legal fees” and “costs,”

and to a layman not aware of the meaning of these terms of art, the

advertisement would suggest that employing appellant would be a

no-lose proposition in that his representation in a losing cause would

come entirely free of charge. The assumption that substantial numbers

of potential clients would be so misled is hardly a speculative one: it is

a commonplace that members of the public are often unaware of the

technical meanings of such terms as “fees” and “costs” – terms that, in

ordinary usage, might well be virtually interchangeable. When the

possibility of deception is as self-evident as it is in this case, we need

not require the State to “conduct a survey of the . . . public before it

[may] determine that the [advertisement] had a tendency to mislead.” 

The State’s position that it is deceptive to employ advertising that

refers to contingent-fee arrangements without mentioning the client’s

liability for costs is reasonable enough to support a requirement that

information regarding the client’s liability for costs be disclosed. 

Id. at 652-53. Accordingly, Zauderer suggests that compelled disclosure of commercial speech,

unlike suppression or restriction of such speech, is subject to rational basis review rather than

intermediate scrutiny.

Approximately fifteen years later, a majority of the Supreme Court addressed Zauderer in

Milavetz. Milavetz concerned the constitutionality of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and

Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”). The act regulated the conduct of debt relief

agencies, i.e., “professionals who provide bankruptcy assistance to consumer debtors.” Milavetz,

559 U.S. at 232. Part of the act required debt relief agencies to make certain disclosures in their

advertisements. See id. at 233. The parties disagreed as to whether Central Hudson or Zauderer

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 19 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

provided the applicable standard in evaluating the statute. The Supreme Court concluded that

Zauderer governed, noting as follows:

The challenged provisions of § 528 share the essential features

of the rule at issue in Zauderer. As in that case, § 528’s required

disclosures are intended to combat the problem of inherently

misleading commercial advertisements – specifically, the promise of

debt relief without any reference to the possibility of filing for

bankruptcy, which has inherent costs. Additionally, the disclosures

entail only an accurate statement identifying the advertiser’s legal

status and the character of the assistance provided, and they do not

prevent debt relief agencies . . . from conveying any additional

information.

Id. at 250. The Court then determined that “§ 528’s requirements that [the petitioner] identify itself

as a debt relief agency and include information about its bankruptcy-assistance an related services

are ‘reasonably related to the [Government’s] interest in preventing deception of consumers.’” Id. at

252-53. Accordingly, it “upheld those provisions as applied to [the petitioner].” Id. at 253.

Since Zauderer and Milavetz, circuit courts have essentially characterized the Zauderer test

as a rational basis or rational review test. See, e.g., Nat’l Ass’n, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14455, at

*55 (stating that “[t]he Supreme Court has stated that rational basis review applies to certain

disclosures of ‘purely factual and uncontroversial information’”; quoting Zauderer); King v.

Governor of N.J., 767 F.3d 216, 236 (3d Cir. 2014) (stating that Zauderer “outlin[ed] the ‘material

differences between disclosure requirements and outright prohibitions on speech’ and subject[ed] a

disclosure requirement to rational basis review”); Safelite Group v. Jepsen, 764 F.3d 258, 259 (2d

Cir. 2014) (characterizing Zauderer as “rational basis review”); Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery

County, 722 F.3d 184, 189 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that, under Zauderer, “disclosure requirements

aimed at misleading commercial speech need only survive rational basis scrutiny”); Disc. Tobacco

City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States, 674 F.3d 509, 559 n.8 (6th Cir. 2012) (characterizing Zauderer

as a “rational-basis rule”); see also Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n v. Rowe, 429 F.3d 294, 316 (1st Cir.

2005) (Boudin, J., concurring) (stating that “[t]he idea that these thousands of routine regulations

require an extensive First Amendment analysis is mistaken” because Zauderer is in essence a

rational basis test). This is consistent with the underlying theory of the First Amendment. As the

Second Circuit has noted, “mandated disclosure of accurate, factual, commercial information does

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 20 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21

not offend the core First Amendment values of promoting efficient exchange of information or

protecting individual liberty interests” – indeed, “disclosure further, rather than hinders, the First

Amendment goal of the discovery of truth and contributes to the efficiency of the ‘marketplace of

ideas.’” Nat’l Elec. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, 272 F.3d 104, 114 (2d Cir. 2001). 

CTIA protests that, even if Zauderer makes a distinction between restrictions on commercial

speech and compelled disclosure, the more lenient test articulated in Zauderer is applicable only

where the governmental interest at issue is the prevention of consumer deception, and that, here, the

governmental interest is in public health or safety, not consumer deception. But tellingly, no court

has expressly held that Zauderer is limited as CTIA proposes. In fact, several circuit courts have

held to the contrary. For example, in American Meat Institute v. United States Department of

Agriculture., 760 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2014), the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, considered a regulation

of the Secretary of Agriculture that required disclosure of country-of-origin information about meat

products. The plaintiffs argued that the regulation violated their First Amendment rights. The

question for the court was whether “the test set forth in Zauderer applies to government interests

beyond consumer deception.” Id. at 21. The court began by acknowledging that 

Zauderer itself does not give a clear answer. Some of its

language suggests possible confinement to correcting deception. 

Having already described the disclosure mandated there as limited to

“purely factual and uncontroversial information about the terms under

which [the transaction was proposed],” the Court said, “we hold that

an advertiser’s rights are adequately protected as long as [such]

disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State’s interest in

preventing deception of consumers.” (It made no finding that the

advertiser’s message was “more likely to deceive the public than to

inform it,” which would constitutionally subject the message to an

outright ban. The Court’s own later application of Zauderer in

Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 559 U.S. 229

(2010), also focused on remedying misleading advertisements, which

was the sole interest invoked by the government. Given the subject of

both cases, it was natural for the Court to express the rule in such

terms. The language could have been simply descriptive of the

circumstances to which the Court applied its new rule, or it could have

aimed to preclude any application beyond those circumstances.

The language with which Zauderer justified its approach,

however, sweeps far more broadly than the interest in remedying

deception. After recounting the elements of Central Hudson, Zauderer

rejected that test as unnecessary in light of the “material differences

between disclosure requirements and outright prohibitions on speech.” 

Later in the opinion, the Court observed that “the First Amendment

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 21 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22

interests implicated by disclosure requirements are substantially

weaker than those at stake when speech is actually suppressed.” After

noting that the disclosure took the form of “purely factual and

uncontroversial information about the terms under which [the] services

will be available,” the Court characterized the speaker’s interest as

“minimal”: “Because the extension of First Amendment protection to

commercial speech is justified principally by the value to consumers

of the information such speech provides, appellant’s constitutionally

protected interest in not providing any particular factual information in

his advertising is minimal.” All told, Zauderer’s characterization of

the speaker’s interest in opposing forced disclosure of such

information as “minimal” seems inherently applicable beyond the

problem of deception, as other circuits [e.g., the Second and First]

have found.

Id. at 21-22.

In National Electrical, the Second Circuit also rejected a reading of Zauderer as being

limited to a situation where the government’s interest is prevention of consumer deception. The

case concerned a Vermont statute that “require[d] manufacturers of some mercury-containing

products to label their products and packaging to inform consumers that the products contain

mercury and, on disposal, should be recycled or disposed of as hazardous waste.” Nat’l Elec., 272

F.3d at 107. The court acknowledged that 

the compelled disclosure at issue here was not intended to prevent

“consumer confusion or deception” per se, but rather to better inform

consumers about the products they purchase. Although the overall

goal of the statute is plainly to reduce the amount of mercury released

into the environment, it is inextricably intertwined with the goal of

increasing consumer awareness of the presence of mercury in a variety

of products. Accordingly, we cannot say that the statute’s goal is

inconsistent with the policies underlying First Amendment protection

of commercial speech, described above, and the reasons supporting the

distinction between compelled and restricted commercial speech. We

therefore find that it is governed by the reasonable-relationship rule in

Zauderer.

We believe that such a reasonable relationship is plain in the

instant case. The prescribed labeling would likely contribute directly

to the reduction of mercury pollution, whether or not it makes the

greatest possible contribution. It is probable that some mercury lamp

purchasers, newly informed by the Vermont label, will properly

dispose of them and thereby reduce mercury pollution. By

encouraging such changes in consumer behavior, the labeling

requirement is rationally related to the state’s goal of reducing

mercury contamination.

We find that the Vermont statute is rationally related to the

state’s goal, notwithstanding that the statute may ultimately fail to

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 22 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23

eliminate all or even most mercury pollution in the state. 

Id. at 115; see also N.Y. St. Rest. Ass’n v. N.Y. City Bd. of Health, 556 F.3d 114, 133 (2d Cir. 2009)

(stating that “Zauderer’s holding was broad enough to encompass nonmisleading disclosure

requirements”).

The First and Sixth Circuits are in accord with the D.C. and Second Circuits. See Pharm.

Care, 429 F.3d at 310 n.8 (noting that “we have found no cases limiting Zauderer [to potentially

deceptive advertising directed at consumers]”); Disc. Tobacco, 674 F.3d at 556-57 (discussing

National Electrical approvingly); cf. Pharm. Care, 429 F.3d at 316 (Boudin, J., concurring) (stating

that “[t]he idea that these thousands of routine regulations require an extensive First Amendment

analysis is mistaken” because Zauderer is in essence a rational basis test). Furthermore, in an

unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit addressed a San Francisco ordinance which also imposed a

notice requirement on cell phone retailers (based on RF energy emission), but the court did not hold

that Zauderer was limited to circumstances in which a state or local government was trying to

prevent potentially misleading advertising. See generally CTIA – The Wireless Ass’n v. City &

County of San Francisco, 494 Fed. Appx. 752 (9th Cir. 2012). The court assumed Zauderer applied

to mandatory disclosures directed at health and safety, not consumer deception. 

The circuit authority cited above is persuasive, and thus the Court disagrees with CTIA’s

interpretation of Zauderer as being limited to preventing consumer deception. Indeed, it would

make little sense to conclude that the government has greater power to regulate commercial speech

in order to prevent deception than to protect public health and safety, a core function of the historic

police powers of the states. See, e.g., Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 715 (2000) (stating that “[it] is

a traditional exercise of the States’ ‘police powers to protect the health and safety of their

citizens’”); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991) (noting that “[t]he traditional police

power of the States is defined as the authority to provide for the public health, safety, and morals”).

Moreover, there is a persuasive argument that, where, as here, the compelled disclosure is

that of clearly identified government speech, and not that of the private speaker, a standard even less

exacting than that established in Zauderer should apply. In Zauderer, the plaintiff-attorney was

being compelled to speak, and nothing about that compelled speech indicated it was anyone’s speech

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 23 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24

but the plaintiff-attorney’s. In contrast, here, CTIA’s members are being compelled to communicate

a message, but the message being communicated is clearly the City’s message, and not that of the

cell phone retailers. See, e.g., Berkeley Mun. Code § 9.96.030(A)-(B) (providing that the notice

shall state “The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following notice” and that “the

notice shall include the City’s logo”). In other words, while CTIA’s members are being compelled

to provide a mandated disclosure of Berkeley’s speech, no one could reasonably mistake that speech

as emanating from a cell phone retailer itself. Where a law requires a commercial entity engaged in

commercial speech merely to permit a disclosure by the government, rather than compelling speech

out of the mouth of the speaker, the First Amendment interests are less obvious. Notably, at the

hearing, CTIA conceded that there would be no First Amendment violation if the City handed out

flyers or had a poster board immediately outside a cell phone retailer’s store. But that then begs the

question of what is the difference between that conduct and the conduct at issue herein – i.e., where

the City information is being provided at the sales counter inside the store instead of immediately

outside the store. While the former certainly seems more intrusive, that is more so because it seems

to impinge on property rights rather than on expressive rights. CTIA has not cited any appellate

authority addressing the proper standard of First Amendment review where the government requires

mandatory disclosure of government speech by a private party in the context of commercial speech.

To be sure, there are First Amendment limits to the government’s ability to require that a

speaker carry a hostile or inconsistent message of a third party, at least in the context of

noncommercial speech. See, e.g., Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515

U.S. 557 (1995) (holding that First Amendment rights of a parade organizer and council were

violated when they were required to include a gay rights organization in their parade); Pac. Gas &

Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1 (1986) (plurality decision) (concluding that the

First Amendment rights of privately owned utility company were violated by an order from the

California Public Utilities Commission that required the company to include in its billing envelopes

speech of a third party with which the company disagreed); Miami Herald Pub’g Co. v. Tornillo,

418 U.S. 241, 243, 256, 258 (1974) (holding that “a state statute granting a political candidate a right

to equal space to reply to criticism and attacks on his record by a newspaper violates the guarantees

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 24 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25

of a free press”; noting that the “statute exacts a penalty on the basis of the content of a newspaper”

and also “intru[des] into the function of editors”). But, as stated above, these cases involved

noncommercial speech, not commercial speech as here. See, e.g., PG&E, 475 U.S. at 9 (noting that

company’s newsletter, which was included in the billing envelopes, covered a wide range of topics,

“from energy-saving tips to stories about wildlife conservation, and from billing information to

recipes,” and thus “extend[ed] well beyond speech that [simply] proposes a business transaction”;

citing Zauderer and Central Hudson). This is a significant distinction, particularly because First

Amendment analysis in the commercial speech context assumes that more speech, so long as it is not

misleading, enhances the marketplace (as well as the marketplace of ideas). See Zauderer, 471 U.S.

at 651 (noting that “the extension of First Amendment protection to commercial speech is justified

principally by the value to consumers of the information such speech provides”). That is why the

Court in Zauderer afforded particular deference to the government’s decision to compel disclosures

(in contrast to laws restricting speech). Here, the ordinance expressly affords retailers the right to

add comments to the notice, and there is no showing that adding comments would be a significant

burden on retailers.

Moreover, Miami Herald can be distinguished on an additional ground. More specifically, in

Miami Herald, the primary concern was the chilling of speech by the entity subject to the disclosure

requirement as a consequence of the challenged law. See Miami Herald, 418 U.S. at 257 (noting

that, “[f]aced with the penalties that would accrue to any newspaper that published news or

commentary arguably within the reach of the right-of-access statute, editors might well conclude

that the safe course is to avoid controversy”). In contrast to Miami Herald, here, there is no real

claim that the retailer’s speech is chilled by the Berkeley ordinance; in fact, as indicated above, the

ordinance expressly allows retailers to add “other information” at the retailer’s discretion. Berkeley

Mun. Code § 9.96.030(B).

While CTIA has argued that being forced to engage in counter-speech (i.e., speech in

response to the City notice) is, in and of itself, a First Amendment burden (as indicated in PG&E),

that is not necessarily true where commercial speech is at issue. As the City points out, Zauderer

spoke only in terms of chilling speech as a First Amendment burden in the context of commercial

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 25 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26

speech. See Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651 (stating that “unjustified or unduly burdensome disclosure

requirements might offend the First Amendment by chilling protected commercial speech”); see also

Am. Meat, 760 F.3d at 27 (acknowledging the same; also stating that “Zauderer cannot justify a

disclosure so burdensome that it essentially operates as a restriction on constitutionally protected

speech”). This makes sense as the value of commercial speech comes from the information it

provides – i.e., more speech, not less. That being said, even if CTIA were correct that the right not

to speak had some application to commercial speech, he need for counter-speech – at least in the

circumstances presented herein – are minimal, as discussed infra.

Thus, there is good reason to conclude that the First Amendment test applicable in this case

should be even more deferential to the government than the test in Zauderer. More particularly, the

rational basis test applicable to compelled display of government speech need not be cabined by the

Zauderer’s requirement that the compelled disclosure be “purely factual and uncontroversial.” 

Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651. In Zauderer, it made sense that the Supreme Court imposed the baseline

requirement that the compelled speech be purely factual and uncontroversial because, where speech

is in fact purely factual and uncontroversial, then the speaker’s interest in countering such

information is minimal. The Zauderer test thus insures any First Amendment interest against

compelled speech is minimal. But where there is attribution of the compelled speech to someone

other than the speaker – in particular, the government – the Zauderer factual-and-uncontroversial

requirement is not needed to minimize the intrusion upon the plaintiff’s First Amendment interest. 

Instead, under more general rational basis principles, the challenged law must be reasonably

related to a legitimate governmental interest. In particular, if the law furthers a legitimate

government interest in requiring disclosure of governmental speech, it should be upheld. This is not

to say that First Amendment interest in this context is nonexistent. Even though no speech is

compelled out of the mouth of retailers and there is no claim that their speech is chilled, the fact that

they may feel compelled to respond to Berkeley’s notice arguably implicates to some extent the First

Amendment. See PG&E, 471 U.S. at 15 (in case involving noncommercial speech, noting that the

company “may be forced either to appear to agree with [third party’s] views [included in the

company’s billing envelope] or to respond”). Because there is an arguable First Amendment

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 26 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

interest, it may reasonably be contended that the more exacting forum of rational basis review

(which some commentators have labeled “rational basis with bite,” see Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d

1070, 1099 (10th Cir. 2014) (citing law review articles addressing “rational basis with bite,”

“rational basis with teeth,” or “rational basis plus”); Powers v. Harris, 379 F.3d 1208, 1224-25 n.21

(10th Cir. 2004) (same)), which requires an examination of actual state interests and whether the

challenged law actually furthers that interest rather than the traditional rational basis review which

permits a law to be upheld if rationally related to any conceivable interest. Compare Romer v.

Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (holding that a Colorado constitutional amendment that prohibited all

legislative, executive, or judicial action designed to protect homosexual persons from discrimination

“lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests”); City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living

Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (striking down under rational basis city council decision preventing group

home for mentally disabled); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (invalidating under rational basis

portion of statute excluding immigrant children from public schools), with Williamson v. Lee

Optical, 348 U.S. 483 (1955) (applying traditional rational relationship test in evaluating

constitutionality of legislation). See also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock, 483 F. Supp. 2d

1023, 1038, n 6 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (recognizing Cleburne/Romer approach commonly referred as

“rational basis with bite”).

For purposes of this opinion, the Court shall evaluate the Berkeley ordinance under the the

more rigorous rational basis review as well as the Zauderer test. As discussed below, both of these

standards have been met in the instant case. 

b. Application of Rational Basis Test

In identifying the government interest supporting the notice required by the ordinance,

Berkeley argues that it simply seeks to insure fuller consumer awareness of the FCC’s SAR testing

procedures and directive to manufacturers to disclose the spacing requirements used to insured SAR

does not exceed stated levels. Promoting consumer awareness of the government’s testing

procedures and guidelines obviously is a legitimate governmental interest. Compare Sorrell v. IMS

Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2672 (2011) (stating that “the government’s legitimate interest in

protecting consumers from ‘commercial harms’ explains ‘why commercial speech can be subject to

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 27 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

greater governmental regulation than noncommercial speech’”), with Int’l Dairy Foods Ass’n v.

Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67, 74 (2d Cir. 1996) (stating that “consumer curiosity alone is not a strong

enough state interest to sustain the compulsion of even an accurate, factual statement in a

commercial context”). And the mandated notice (apart from the warning about risk to children)

furthers and is reasonably related that governmental interest. As noted in the preemption analysis

above, nothing in the required Berkeley notice contradicts what the FCC has said and done, and the

upshot of the notice (advising consumers to consult the cell phone instructions or user manual on

how to safely use the phone) tracks what the FCC requires.

CTIA argues that framing the governmental interest as insuring consumer awareness begs the

question and misses the real mark. It contends that the real asserted interest here is purported public

safety and that the mandated notice is misleading because it suggests a substantial risk to health that

does not in fact exist. To the extent the true ultimate governmental interest for the ordinance is

public health and safety (since the purpose of referring consumers to the user manual is so that

consumers will know how to “use your phone safely”), such an interest undoubtedly is a legitimate

public interest. See, e.g., Hispanic Taco Vendors v. Pasco, 994 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1993)

(finding ordinance that regulated itinerant vending and imposed licensing fees supported by

legitimate governmental interests in, e.g., health and safety). The question then is whether the

ordinance is reasonably related to such interest. Notwithstanding CTIA’s argument to the contrary,

the Court concludes that it is. 

While there is scientific uncertainty as to the relationship between SAR levels and the risk

of, e.g., cancer, and there is scientific debate about whether nonthermal as well as thermal effects of

RF radiation may pose health risks, there is a reasonable scientific basis to believe that RF radiation

at some levels can and do present health risks. The SAR limits were established by the FCC in the

interests of safety in view of the potential risks of RF radiation exposure. Although current

maximum SAR levels set by the FCC were designed to provide a comfortable margin, at least with

respect to risks posed by the thermal effect of RF radiation, the FCC has in fact established specific

limits to SAR exposure and uses those limits in the testing and approval of cell phones for sale to the

public. And testing procedures governed by FCC rules incorporating those SAR limits assume a

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 28 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10 The mere fact of scientific uncertainty and/or inexactitude does not render the

government’s interest in issuing safety warnings to the public irrational or unreasonable. Such

uncertainty and inexactitude inheres in the assessment of any risk. To require the government to

prove a particular quantum of danger before issuing safety warnings would jeopardize an

immeasurable number of laws, regulations, and directives. See Nat’l Elec., 272 F.3d at 116 (taking

note of “the potentially wide-ranging implications of NEMA’s First Amendment complaint,” as

“[i]nnumerable federal and state regulatory programs require the disclosure of product and other

commercial information,” ranging from securities disclosures and disclosures in prescription drug

advertisements to tobacco and nutritional labeling and California’s Proposition 65).

11 At the hearing, the Court discussed with the parties who had the burden of proof with

respect to the Zauderer test. Where a commercial speech restriction is at issue, the party seeking to

uphold the restriction bears the burden of proof in justifying it. See Thompson v. W. States Med.

Ctr., 535 U.S. 357, 373 (2002). But here, the Court is not dealing with a commercial speech

restriction but rather a compelled disclosure. For purposes of this opinion, the Court need not

resolve the issue of who bears the burden of proof.

29

minimal amount of spacing of the cell phone from the body, without which SAR levels may exceed

the established guidelines. See CTIA, 827 F. Supp. 2d at 1062 (noting that “the FCC has implicitly

recognized that excessive RF radiation is potentially dangerous[;] [i]t did so when it ‘balanced’ that

risk against the need for a practical nationwide cell phone system,” and “[t]he FCC has never said

that RF radiation poses no danger at all, only that RF radiation can be set at acceptable levels”),

rev’d on other grounds, 494 Fed. Appx. 752 (9th Cir. 2012). Unless the Court were to find that the

FCC guidelines themselves are scientifically baseless and hence irrational – which no one has asked

this Court to do – the mandated notice here, being predicated on the FCC’s guidelines, is reasonably

related to a legitimate governmental interest.10 In short, so long as the challenged law requiring

display and disclosure of governmental message in the context of commercial speech is supported by

some reasonable scientific basis, it is likely to pass the rational basis test applicable under the First

Amendment. 

c. Application of Zauderer Test

Even if the ordinance is subject to the more specific Zauderer test,11 see CTIA, 494 Fed.

Appx. at 752 (addressing San Francisco ordinance also imposing a notice requirement on cell phone

retailers and applying Zauderer), the Berkeley ordinance would likely be upheld. Under Zauderer,

the predicate requirement is that the compelled speech must be factual and uncontroversial. But

how a court should determine whether such speech is factual and uncontroversial is not clear.

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 29 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

For example, a good case can be made that a court should tread carefully before deeming

compelled speech controversial for Zauderer purposes. As the Sixth Circuit has noted, facts alone

“can disconcert, displease, provoke an emotional response, spark controversy, and even overwhelm

reason”; thus, the court rejected “the underlying premise that a disclosure that provokes a visceral

response must fall outside Zauderer’s ambit.” Disc. Tobacco, 674 F.3d at 569 (adding that “whether

a disclosure is scrutinized under Zauderer turns on whether the disclosure conveys factual

information or an opinion, not on whether the disclosure emotionally affects its audience or incites

controversy”). The Sixth Circuit also made the point that the use of the word “uncontroversial”

appeared only once in Zauderer and that elsewhere the Zauderer plurality simply “refer[red] to a

commercial speaker disclosing ‘factual information’ and ‘accurate information.’” Id. at 559 n.8

(citing Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651 & n.14). Furthermore, in Milavetz, the Supreme Court did not

repeat the use of the term and instead “use[d] the language required factual information and only an

accurate statement when describing the characteristics of a disclosure that is scrutinized for a

rational basis.” Id. (emphasis in original; citing Milavetz, 1130 S. Ct. at 1339-40). Accordingly, this

Court agrees with the Sixth Circuit that the term “uncontroversial” should generally be equated with

the term “accurate.” 

As for the requirement that the compelled speech be factual (or accurate), in any given case,

it is easy to conceive of an argument that, even if the compelled speech is technically accurate, (1) it

is still suggestive of an opinion or (2) it is misleading. For example, on the former, one could

contend that the mere fact that the government is compelling the speech in the first place indicates

that it is the government’s opinion that there is a point of concern for the public. One could also

argue that the compelled speech is misleading because it omits more specific information. 

But Zauderer cannot be read to establish a “factual and uncontroversial” requirement that

can be so easily manipulated that it would effectively bar any compelled disclosure by the

government. This is particularly true where public health and safety are at issue, as in the instant

case. Any time there is an element of risk to public health and safety, practically any speech on the

matter could be deemed misleading unless there were a disclosure of everything on each side of the

scientific debate – an impossible task. One could easily imagine that an overly rigorous “factual and

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 30 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31

uncontroversial” test would render even the Surgeon General’s textual warnings found on cigarette

packages a violation of the First Amendment. See 15 U.S.C. § 1333(a) (listing warnings, including

“Tobacco smoke can harm your children,” “Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in

nonsmokers,” and “Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health”); see also

Nat’l Elec., 272 F.3d at 116 (taking note of “the potentially wide-ranging implications of NEMA’s

First Amendment complaint,” as “[i]nnumerable federal and state regulatory programs require the

disclosure of product and other commercial information,” ranging from securities disclosures and

disclosures in prescription drug advertisements to tobacco and nutritional labeling and California’s

Proposition 65).

Turning to the City ordinance at issue here, the Court finds that the factual-anduncontroversial predicate requirement has likely been met, particularly as the Court has now found

the sentence regarding children preempted. With that sentence excised, the ordinance provides in

relevant part as follows:

The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following

notice:

To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones

meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use

your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the

phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the

federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. This potential risk is

greater for children. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user

manual for information about how to use your phone safely.

Berkeley Mun. Code § 9.96.030(A).

The notice contains accurate and uncontroversial information – i.e., that the FCC has put

limits on RF energy emission with respect to cell phones and that wearing a cell phone against the

body (without any spacer) may lead the wearer to exceed the limits. This is consistent with the

FCC’s directive to cell phone manufacturers to advise consumers about minimum spacing to be

maintained between the body and a cell phone, and although there is in fact a good safety margin (at

least for thermal effects of RF radiation), nothing indicates that the FCC objects to informing

consumers about spacing the phone away from the body.

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 31 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

32

CTIA takes issue with the use of the words “safety” and “radiation,” but the use of both

words is accurate and uncontroversial. Regarding “safety,” the FCC clearly imposed limits because

of safety concerns. The limits that the agency ultimately chose reflected a balancing of the risk to

public health and safety against the need for a practical nationwide cell phone system, but it cannot

be denied that safety was a part of that calculus. See CTIA, 827 F. Supp. 2d at 1062 (in the San

Francisco ordinance case, noting that, “[e]ven the FCC has implicitly recognized that excessive RF

radiation is potentially dangerous” because it “‘balanced’ that risk against the need for a practical

nationwide cell phone system[;] [t]he FCC has never said that RF radiation poses no danger at all,

only that RF radiation can be set at acceptable levels”), rev’d on other grounds, 494 Fed. Appx. 752

(9th Cir. 2012). As for the term “radiation,” RF energy is undisputedly a form of radiation. See

2013 FCC Reassessment, 28 F.C.C. Rcd. at 3585 (stating that RF energy is “‘a form of

electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by cell phones’”). That the City notice does not make the

finer distinction that RF energy is non-ionizing radiation rather than ionizing radiation is immaterial

as that distinction would likely have little meaning to the public. As for CTIA’s contention that

there may be a negative association with nuclear radiation (ionizing radiation), that seems unlikely,

particularly in this day and age when radiation comes from various sources in everyday life,

including, e.g., radios, televisions, and microwave ovens. No one seriously contends that consumers

are likely to believe cell phones emit nuclear radiation or something akin to that.

Finally, CTIA protests that the notice is misleading because, even if a cell phone is worn

against the body, it is unlikely that the federal guidelines for SAR will be exceeded. See Mot. at 15-

16 (arguing that”this may be possible only ‘with the device transmitting continuously and at

maximum power [such as might happen during a call with a handset and the phone in the user’s

pocket at the fringe of a reception area],’ and that ‘using a device against the body without a spacer

will generally result in an actual SAR below the maximum SAR testing’”). But as indicated above,

the Court is wary about any contention that a compelled disclosure – particularly where the message

in the disclosure is attributed to the government – is misleading simply because the disclosure does

not describe with precision the magnitude of the risk; the point remains that the FCC established

certain limits regarding SAR, limits which have not been challenged as illegal. The mandated

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 32 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33

disclosure truthfully states that federal guidelines may be exceeded where spacing is not observed,

just as the FDA accurately warns that “Tobacco smoke can harm your children.” More importantly,

the sentence criticized by CTIA is tempered by the following sentence: “Refer to the instructions in

your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.” That is the upshot

of the disclosure – users are advised to consult the manual wherein the FCC itself mandates

disclosures about maintaining spacing. See FCC KDB, No. 447498, General RF Exposure

Guidelines, § 4.2.2(4). This is, in essence, factual in nature for purposes of Zauderer.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the City notice, with the sentence regarding

children excised from the text on preemption grounds, likely meets the Zauderer factual-anduncontroversial predicate requirement. 

d. Government Interest

As indicated above, under the Zauderer test, if the disclosure requirement is factual and

uncontroversial, then it does not violate the First Amendment so long as it is reasonably related to

the governmental interest. This test has been met, for largely the reasons articulated above in

discussing the traditional rational review test. Given the fact that the spacing requirements

employed by the FCC were established to insure maximum specific levels of SAR are not exceeded

and the FCC acknowledges there is a connection between SAR and safety, even if the precise

parameters and limits are matters of scientific debate, the ordinance appears “reasonably related” to

a legitimate government interest. 

e. Undue Burden

Finally, CTIA contends that the disclosure requirement here cannot be upheld because it still

violates the First Amendment as it is unduly burdensome. But for this argument to succeed, CTIA

cannot show just any kind of burden; rather, it must show a First Amendment burden, i.e., a burden

on speech.

CTIA has not made any argument that the City ordinance would chill its or its members’

speech; rather, it contends that there is a burden on its or its members’ speech because they would

rather remain silent but, with the compelled disclosure, are now being forced to engage in counterspeech. As noted above, the City asserts that, where commercial speech is at issue, the only

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 33 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12 As noted above, there is an arguable First Amendment interest in not being compelled to

respond to speech of a third party, though the only precedent for such a proposition is in the context

of noncommercial speech. 

13 CTIA also argues irreparable harm to its members’ customer goodwill and business

reputations and from the threatened enforcement of a preempted ordinance, see Mot. at 22, but

ultimately these arguments are predicated on the First Amendment argument. In any event, CTIA

has made no satisfactory showing that its business interests are jeopardized by the Berkeley notice if

the warning about children is excised. 

34

cognizable burden is chilling of speech, not the burden of being compelled to speak. While this

position has some grounding in Zauderer, which identified only the chilling of commercial speech

as a burden, see Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651, the Court need not definitively resolve whether

compelled commercial counter-speech can be an undue burden because, even accepting that it can,12

the burden here to CTIA or its members is nothing more than minimal. The ordinance gives retailers

the discretion to add their own speech to Berkeley’s message. And because the City’s required

notice contains factual and uncontroversial information, the need for “corrective” counter-speech is

minimal. 

f. Summary on First Amendment Claim

On the first preliminary injunction factor, the Court cannot say that CTIA has established a

strong likelihood of success on the merits with respect to its First Amendment claim. Nor has it

raised serious question on the merits. While the sentence in the Berkeley ordinance regarding the

potential risk to children is likely preempted, the remainder of the City notice is factual and

uncontroversial and is reasonably related to the City’s interest in public health and safety. 

Moreover, the disclosure requirement does not impose an undue burden on CTIA or its members’

First Amendment rights. 

C. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm and Balancing of Equities

CTIA’s argument on both the likelihood of irreparable harm and the balancing of equities

largely depends on there being preemption or a First Amendment violation in the first place.13 See

Mot. at 21 (citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (stating that “the loss of First

Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable

injury”)). But, as discussed above, the likelihood of success on both the preemption and First

Amendment claims is weak once the sentence on children is excised from the text of the City notice. 

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 34 of 35
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35

Accordingly, the second and third preliminary injunction factors, like the first, do not weigh in

CTIA’s favor.

D. Public Interest

Finally, the fourth preliminary injunction factor does not weigh in CTIA’s favor – again

because of the weakness of its claims on the merits. CTIA contends that the public interest does not

weigh in favor of the City because “accurate and balanced disclosures regarding RF energy are

already available,” Mot. at 23 (emphasis in original), but the City has a fair point that, in spite of the

availability, there is evidence that the public does not know about those disclosures. See, e.g.,

Jensen Decl., Ex. A (survey) (reflecting that a majority of persons surveyed were, e.g., not “aware

that the government’s radiation tests to assure the safety of cell phones assume that a cell phone

would not be carried against your body, but would instead be held at least 1- to 15 millimeters from

your body”). Furthermore, as suggested above, there is a public interest in public safety as well as

assuring fuller consumer awareness, particularly where the federal government through the FCC has

endorsed consumer awareness by requiring that cell phone manufacturers provide information about

spacing to consumers.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part CTIA’s motion for a

preliminary injunction. The motion is granted to the extent the Court finds a likely successful

preemption claim with respect to the sentence in the City notice regarding children’s safety. The

motion is denied to the extent the Court finds that a First Amendment claim and preemption claim

are not likely to succeed on the remainder of the City notice language.

The Berkeley ordinance is enjoined, unless and until the sentence in the City notice

regarding children safety is excised from the notice.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 4 and 36.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2015 _________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02529-EMC Document 53 Filed 09/21/15 Page 35 of 35