Case Name: BLOSS v. FEDERATED PUBLICATIONS, INC.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1968-04-01
Citations: 380 Mich. 485
Docket Number: Calendar No. 36, Docket No. 51,654
Parties: BLOSS v. FEDERATED PUBLICATIONS, INC.
Judges: Dethmers, C. J. and Kelly, T. M. KavaNagh, O’Haea, and BreNNAN, JJ., concurred with Black, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 380
Pages: 485–491

Head Matter:
BLOSS v. FEDERATED PUBLICATIONS, INC.
Opinion op the Court.
1. Newspapers — Private Enterprise — Advertising.
The business of publishing a newspaper is a strictly private enterprise, and its publisher is under no legal obligation to sell advertising to all who would buy it.
2. Same — Theater Advertising — Discrimination.
Defendant newspaper publisher’s refusal to aeeept theater operator’s advertising held, not actionably discriminatory, where the advertising did not meet the published standards of defendant for motion picture advertising, and during the time plaintiff’s advertisements were printed, defendant’s staff had to expend a disproportionate amount of time to make them acceptable; and failure of plaintiff to show that defendant deviated from this policy is fatal because the essential element of discrimination is lacking.
Separate Opinion.
Souris, J.
See headnote 1.
Dissenting Opinion.
Adams, J.
3.Newspapers — Summary Judgment — Advertising—Private Enterprise.
Trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which sought to test the validity of the legal proposition that since defendant published a newspaper, a private enterprise, its publisher is under no obligation to sell advertising to plaintiff theater operator, was error, since a newspaper business might not necessarily be a purely private enterprise, especially if it held out its columns for advertising to the public.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1,2] 39 Am Jur, Newspapers and Press Associations § 22.
Right of publisher, newspaper, or magazine to refuse advertisement. 87 ALB 979.
[3,6] 39 Am Jur, Newspapers and Press Associations §22; 41 Am Jur, Pleading §§ 340-342.
[4] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 545.
[5] 39 Am Jur, Newspapers and Press Associations § 22.
4. Same — Courts—Factual Issues — -Pleading.
Court of Appeals' passing, even arguendo, upon a factual issue that theater advertising does not meet defendant newspaper’s standards of decency is not appropriate, since issue was not admitted by plaintiff theater owner or raised by defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action to compel defendant to accept and publish plaintiff’s advertisements.
5. Same — Advertising—-Public Interest.
Political candidates, commercial enterprises, and governmental units may have the right to insist upon access to newspaper advertising upon equal terms where a newspaper controls the sole means of daily paid printed communication within a given area and the newspaper has held itself out generally to the public as affording such means of communication, subject to its rules and regulations.
6. Same — Summary Judgment — Advertising.
Summary judgment in favor of defendant newspaper publisher, where plaintiff theater operator complained that defendant refused to accept advertising of his motion picture shows, and plaintiff sought mandatory injunctive relief on theory that defendant was in business affected with a public interest and could not refuse such advertising, was error, because trial is required to determine if in fact defendant had conducted its newspaper business as a purely private one with no holding out to the public of its advertising columns, and if in fact plaintiff had failed to meet published standards of decency for motion picture advertising.
Appeal from Court of Appeals, Division 3; Hol-brook, P. J., Fitzgerald, and J. H. Grillis, JJ., affirming Calhoun, Coleman (Creighton E.), J. Submitted December 5, 1967. (Calendar No. 36, Docket No. 51,654.) Decided April 1, 1968.
5 Mich App 74, affirmed.
Complaint by Floyd C. Bloss against Federated Publications, Inc., a Delaware corporation, for mandatory injunctive relief to compel defendant to accept and publish advertising offered to it by plaintiff. Summary judgment for defendant. Judgment affirmed by Court of Appeals. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Hillman, Baxter & Hammond, for plaintiff.
Sullivan, Hamilton & Ryan, for defendant.

Opinion:
Black, J.
I vote to affirm. As pointed out by Division 3, 5 Mich App 74, all authoritative precedent, opposed only by a decision made in 1919 by a nisi prius court, Uhlman v. Sherman, 22 Ohio. NP (NS) 225 (31 Ohio Dec 54), rules that the business of publishing a newspaper is a strictly private enterprise and that the publisher thereof is under no legal obligation to sell advertising to all who would buy it.
Plaintiff's derivative contention, that the defendant publisher has actionably discriminated against him, is answered properly by a portion of Judge Holbeook's ' opinion which, in my view, should be expressly indorsed (5 Mich App 74, 84):
"Arguendo, even under Uhlman, supra, plaintiff must fail. Defendant's refusal to publish plaintiff's advertising was because the advertising did not meet the published standards of defendant for motion picture advertising, and during the time plaintiff's advertisements were printed, defendant's staff bad to expend a disproportionate amount of time to make tbem acceptable. Tbe failure of plaintiff to show that defendant deviated from tbis policy is fatal because tbe essential element of discrimination is lacking."
Defendant should bave costs.
Dethmers, C. J. and Kelly, T. M. KavaNagh, O'Haea, and BreNNAN, JJ., concurred with Black, J.
Plaintiff presents the contention by this stated question:
"When a newspaper, which is the only daily paper in a community of approximately 125,000 persons, has theater advertising space to sell, has it a right to discriminate against one local theater owner by refusing to aceept his advertising when in his application for advertising he complies with the law and the reasonable rules of the newspaper in reference to the character of its advertising, and also' tenders the regular and ordinary fee charged therefor by the newspaper?"