Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

and  uncontroversial  disclosures  about 
products. 

commercial 

III 
We  next  address  the  unlicensed  notice.    The  parties
dispute  whether  the  unlicensed  notice  is  subject  to  defer-
  We  need  not  decide 
ential  review  under  Zauderer.3
whether  the  Zauderer  standard  applies  to  the  unlicensed 
notice.  Even  under  Zauderer,  a  disclosure  requirement 
cannot be “unjustified or unduly burdensome.”  471 U. S., 
at  651.  Our  precedents  require  disclosures  to  remedy  a
harm  that  is  “potentially  real  not  purely  hypothetical,” 
Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regu-
lation, Bd. of Accountancy, 512 U. S. 136, 146 (1994), and 
to extend “no broader than reasonably necessary,” In re R. 
M.  J.,  455  U. S.  191,  203  (1982);  accord,  Virginia  Bd.  of 
Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 
U. S. 748, 772, n. 24 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 
U. S.  350,  384  (1977);  cf.  Zauderer,  471  U. S.,  at  649  (re-
jecting “broad prophylactic rules” in this area).  Otherwise, 
they  risk  “chilling”  protected  speech.”    Id.,  at  651.  Im-
portantly,  California  has  the  burden  to  prove  that  the 
unlicensed  notice  is  neither  unjustified  nor  unduly  bur-
densome.  See Ibanez, 512 U. S., at 146.  It has not met its 
burden. 

We  need  not  decide  what  type  of  state  interest  is  suffi-
cient  to  sustain  a  disclosure  requirement  like  the  unli-
censed notice.  California has not demonstrated any justi-
fication for the unlicensed notice that is more than “purely 
hypothetical.”    Ibid.    The  only  justification  that  the  Cali-
fornia  Legislature  put  forward  was  ensuring  that  “preg-
nant  women  in  California  know  when  they  are  getting 
—————— 

3 Other  than  a  conclusory  assertion  that  the  unlicensed  notice  satis-
fies  any  standard  of  review,  see  Brief  for  Respondents  19,  California
does  not  explain  how  the  unlicensed  notice  could  satisfy  any  standard 
other than Zauderer.