Task: sc_decisiondirection

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.

Justice & alia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U. S. C. App. § 1301 et seq., pre-empts the States from prohibiting allegedly deceptive airline fare advertisements through enforcement of their general consumer protection statutes.
I
Prior to 1978, the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FAA), 72 Stat. 731, as amended, 49 U. S. C. App. § 1301 et seq., gave the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) authority to regulate interstate airfares and to take administrative action against certain deceptive trade practices. It did not, however, expressly pre-empt state regulation, and contained a “saving clause” providing that “[n]othing... in this chapter shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such remedies.” 49 U. S. C. App. § 1506. As a result, the States were able to regulate intrastate airfares (including those offered by interstate air carriers), see, e. g., California v. CAB, 189 U. S. App. D. C. 176, 178, 581 F. 2d 954, 956 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 1068 (1979), and to enforce their own laws against deceptive trade practices, see Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 426 U. S. 290, 300 (1976).
In 1978, however, Congress, determining that “maximum reliance on competitive market forces” would best further “efficiency, innovation, and low prices” as well as “variety [and] quality... of air transportation services,” enacted the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). 49 U. S. C. App. §§ 1302(a)(4), 1302(a)(9). To ensure that the States would not undo federal deregulation with regulation of their own, the ADA included a pre-emption provision, prohibiting the States from enforcing any law “relating to rates, routes, or services” of any air carrier. § 1305(a)(1). The ADA retained the CAB’s previous enforcement authority regarding deceptive trade practices (which was transferred to the Department of Transportation (DOT) when the CAB was abolished in 1985), and it also did not repeal or alter the saving clause in the prior law.
In 1987, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), an organization whose membership includes the attorneys general of all 50 States, various Territories, and the District of Columbia, adopted Air Travel Industry Enforcement Guidelines (set forth in an Appendix to this opinion) containing detailed standards governing the content and format of airline advertising, the awarding of premiums to regular customers (so-called “frequent flyers”), and the payment of compensation to passengers who voluntarily yield their seats on overbooked flights. These guidelines do not purport to “create any new laws or regulations” applying to the airline industry; rather, they claim to “explain in detail how existing state laws apply to air fare advertising and frequent flyer programs.” NAAG Guidelines, Introduction (1988).
Despite objections to the guidelines by the DOT and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on pre-emption and policy grounds, the attorneys general of seven States, including petitioner’s predecessor as attorney general of Texas, sent a memorandum to the major airlines announcing that “it has come to our attention that although most airlines are making a concerted effort to bring their advertisements into compliance with the standards delineated in the... guidelines for fare advertising, many carriers are still [not disclosing all surcharges]” in violation of §2.5 of the guidelines. The memorandum said it was the signatories’ “purpose.... to clarify for the industry as a whole that [this practice] is a violation of our respective state laws on deceptive advertising and trade practices”; warned that this was an “advisory memorandum before [the] initiation of] any immediate enforcement actions”; and expressed the hope that “protracted litigation over this issue will not be necessary and that airlines will discontinue the practice... immediately.” Memorandum from Attorneys General of Colorado, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin, dated February 3, 1988 (Exhibit A to Exhibit H to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order), App. 123a, 125a. Several months later, petitioner’s office sent letters to several respondents serving /‘as formal notice[s] of intent to sue.” Letter from Assistant Attorney General of Texas, dated November 14, 1988, App. 115a.
Those respondents then filed suit in Federal District Court claiming that state regulation of fare advertisements is preempted by § 1305(a)(1); seeking a declaratory judgment that, inter alia, § 2.5 of the guidelines is pre-empted; and requesting an injunction restraining Texas from taking any action under its law in conjunction with the guidelines that would regulate respondents’ rates, routes, or services, or their advertising and marketing of the same. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction to that effect, determining that respondents were likely to prevail on their pre-emption claim. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Mattox, 712 F. Supp. 99, 101-102 (WD Tex. 1989). (It subsequently extended that injunction to 33 other States, id., at 105-106; the propriety of that extension is not before us.) The Court of Appeals affirmed. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Mattox, 897 F. 2d 773, 783-784 (CA5 1990). Subsequently, the District Court, in an unreported order, permanently enjoined the States from taking “any enforcement action” which would restrict “any aspect” of respondents’ fare advertising or operations relating to rates, routes, or services. The Court of Appeals once again affirmed. 949 F. 2d 141 (CA5 1991). We granted certiorari. 502 U. S. 976 (1991).
HH HH
Before discussing whether § 1305(a)(1) pre-empts state enforcement of the challenged guidelines, we first consider whether, assuming that it does, the District Court could properly award respondents injunctive relief. It is a “ ‘basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act... when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.’ ” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 499 (1974); Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 43-44 (1971). In Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 156 (1908), we held that this doctrine does not prevent federal courts from enjoining state officers “who threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either of a civil or criminal nature, to enforce against parties affected an unconstitutional act, violating the Federal Constitution.” When enforcement actions are imminent — and at least when repetitive penalties attach to continuing or repeated violations and the moving party lacks the realistic option of violating the law once and raising its federal defenses — there is no adequate remedy at law. See id., at 145-147, 163-165.
We think Young establishes that injunctive relief was available here. As we have described, the attorneys general of seven States, including petitioner’s predecessor, had made clear that they would seek to enforce the challenged portions of the guidelines (those concerning fare advertising) through suits under their respective state laws. And Texas law, at least, imposes additional liability (by way of civil penalties and consumer treble-damages actions) for multiple violations. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §§ 17.47,17.50 (1987 and Supp. 1991-1992). Like the plaintiff in Young, then, respondents were faced with a Hobson’s choice: continually violate the Texas law and expose themselves to potentially huge liability; or violate the law once as a test case and suffer the injury of obeying the law during the pendency of the proceedings and any further review.
The District Court, however, enjoined petitioner not only from enforcing the fare advertising sections of the guidelines, but also from “initiating any enforcement action... which would seek to regulate or restrict any aspect of the... plaintiff airlines’ air fare advertising or the operations involving their rates, routes, and/or services.” 712 F. Supp., at 102. In so doing, it disregarded the limits on the exercise of its injunctive power. In suits such as this one, which the plaintiff intends as a “first strike” to prevent a State from initiating a suit of its own, the prospect of state suit must be imminent, for it is the prospect of that suit which supplies the necessary irreparable injury. See Public Serv. Comm’n of Utah v. Wycoff Co., 344 U. S. 237, 240-241 (1952). Ex parte Young thus speaks of enjoining state officers “who threaten and are about to commence proceedings,” 209 U. S., at 156 (emphasis added); see also id., at 158, and we have recognized in a related context that a conjectural injury cannot warrant equitable relief, see O’Shea, supra, at 502. Any other rule (assuming it would meet Article III case-or-controversy requirements) would require federal courts to determine the constitutionality of state laws in hypothetical situations where it is not even clear the State itself would consider its law applicable. This problem is vividly enough illustrated by the blunderbuss injunction in the present case, which declares pre-empted “any” state suit involving “any aspect” of the airlines’ rates, routes, and services. As petitioner has threatened to enforce only the obligations described in the guidelines regarding fare advertising, the injunction must be vacated insofar as it restrains the operation of state laws with respect to other matters.
HH HH ► — H
We now turn to the question whether enforcement of the NAAG guidelines on fare advertising through a State’s general consumer protection laws is pre-empted by the ADA. As we have often observed, “[p]re-emption may be either express or implied, and is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.” FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U. S. 52, 56-57 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted); Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85, 95 (1983). The question, at bottom, is one of statutory intent, and we accordingly “‘begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose.’” Holliday, supra, at 57; Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 194 (1985).
A
Section 1305(a)(1) expressly pre-empts the States from “enact[ing] or enforcing] any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier....” For purposes of the present case, the key phrase, obviously, is “relating to.” The ordinary meaning of these words is a broad one — “to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1158 (5th ed. 1979) — and the words thus express a broad pre-emptive purpose. We have repeatedly recognized that in addressing the similarly worded pre-emption provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a), which pre-empts all state laws “insofar as they... relate to any employee benefit plan.” We have said, for example, that the “breadth of [that provision’s] pre-emptive reach is apparent from [its] language,” Shaw, supra, at 96; that it has a “broad scope,” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724, 739 (1985), and an “expansive sweep,” Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41, 47 (1987); and that it is “broadly worded,” Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S. 133, 138 (1990), “deliberately expansive,” Pilot Life, supra, at 46, and “conspicuous for its breadth,” Holliday, supra, at 58. True to our word, we have held that a state law “relates to” an employee benefit plan, and is pre-empted by ERISA, “if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.” Shaw, supra, at 97. Since the relevant language of the ADA is identical, we think it appropriate to adopt the same standard here: State enforcement actions having a connection with, or reference to, airline “rates, routes, or services” are pre-empted under 49 U. S. C. App. § 1305(a)(1).
Petitioner raises a number of objections to this reading, none of which we think is well taken. First, he claims that we may not use our interpretation of identical language in ERISA as a guide, because the sweeping nature of ERISA pre-emption derives not from the “relates to” language, but from “the wide and inclusive sweep of the comprehensive ERISA scheme,” which he asserts the ADA does not have. Brief for Petitioner 33-34. This argument is flatly contradicted by our ERISA cases, which clearly and unmistakably rely on express pre-emption principles and a construction of the phrase “relates to.” See, e. g., Shaw, supra, at 96-97, and n. 16 (citing dictionary definitions); Ingersoll-Rand, supra, at 138-139. Petitioner also stresses that the FAA “saving” clause, which preserves “the remedies now existing at common law or by statute,” 49 U. S. C. App. § 1506, is broader than its ERISA counterpart. But it is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general, see, e. g., Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U. S. 437, 445 (1987), a canon particularly pertinent here, where the “saving” clause is a relic of the pre-ADA/no preemption regime. A general “remedies” saving clause cannot be allowed to supersede the specific substantive pre-emption provision — unless it be thought that a State having a statute requiring “reasonable rates,” and providing remedies against “unreasonable” ones, could actually set airfares. As in International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U. S. 481, 494 (1987), “we do not believe Congress intended to undermine this carefully drawn statute through a general saving clause.”
Petitioner contends that § 1305(a)(1) only pre-empts the States from actually prescribing rates, routes, or services. This simply reads the words “relating to” out of the statute. Had the statute been designed to pre-empt state law in such a limited fashion, it would have forbidden the States to “regulate rates, routes, and services.” See Pilot Life, supra, at 50 (“A common-sense view of the word ‘regulates’ would lead to the conclusion that in order to regulate [a matter], a law... must be specifically directed toward [it]”). Moreover, if the pre-emption effected by § 1305(a)(1) were such a limited one, no purpose would be served by the very next subsection, which preserves to the States certain proprietary rights over airports. 49 U. S. C. App. § 1305(b).
Next, petitioner advances the notion that only state laws specifically addressed to the airline industry are pre-empted, whereas the ADA imposes no constraints on laws of general applicability. Besides creating an utterly irrational loophole (there is little reason why state impairment of the federal scheme should be deemed acceptable so long as it is effected by the particularized application of a general statute), this notion similarly ignores the sweep of the “relating to” language. We have consistently rejected this precise argument in our ERISA cases: “[A] state law may ‘relate to’ a benefit plan, and thereby be pre-empted, even if the law is not specifically designed to affect such plans, or the effect is only indirect.” Ingersoll-Rand, supra, at 139; see Pilot Life, supra, at 47-48 (common-law tort and contract suits pre-empted); Metropolitan Life, 471 U. S., at 739 (state law requiring health insurance plans to cover certain mental health expenses pre-empted); Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U. S. 504, 525 (1981) (workers’ compensation laws pre-empted).
Last, the State suggests that pre-emption is inappropriate when state and federal law are consistent. State and federal law are in fact inconsistent here — the DOT opposes the obligations contained in the guidelines, and Texas law imposes greater liability — but that is beside the point. Nothing in the language of § 1305(a)(1) suggests that its “relating to” pre-emption is limited to inconsistent state regulation; and once again our ERISA cases have settled the matter: “‘The pre-emption provision... displace^] all state laws that fall within its sphere, even including state laws that are consistent with ERISA’s substantive requirements.’” Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 486 U. S. 825, 829 (1988); Metropolitan Life, supra, at 739.
B
It is hardly surprising that petitioner rests most of his case on such strained readings of § 1305(a)(1), rather than contesting whether the NAAG guidelines really “relat[e] to” fares. They quite obviously do. Taking them seriatim: Section 2.1, governing print advertisements of fares, requires “clear and conspicuous disclosure [defined as the lesser of one-third the size of the largest typeface in the ad or ten-point type] of restrictions such as” limited time availability, limitations on refund or exchange rights, time-of-day or day-of-week restrictions, length-of-stay requirements, advance-purchase and round-trip-purchase requirements, variations in fares from or to different airports in the same metropolitan area, limitations on breaks or changes in itinerary, limits on fare availability, and “[a]ny other material restriction on the fare.” Section 2.2 imposes similar, though somewhat less onerous, restrictions on broadcast advertisements of fares; and § 2.3 requires billboard fare ads to state clearly and conspicuously “‘Substantial restrictions apply’” if there are any material restrictions on the fares’ availability. The guidelines further mandate that an advertised fare be available in sufficient quantities to “meet reasonably foreseeable demand” on every flight on every day in every market in which the fare is advertised; if the fare will not be available on this basis, the ad must contain a “clear and conspicuous statement of the extent of unavailability.” §2.4. Section 2.5 requires that the advertised fare include all taxes and surcharges; round-trip fares, under §2.6, must be disclosed at least as prominently as the one-way fare when the fare is only available on round trips; and §2.7 prohibits use of the words “ ‘sale/ ‘discount/ [or] ‘reduced’ ”• unless the advertised fare is available only for a limited time and is “substantially below the usual price for the same fare with the same restrictions.”
One cannot avoid the conclusion that these aspects of the guidelines “relate to” airline rates. In its terms, every one of the guidelines enumerated above bears a “reference to” airfares. Shaw, 463 U. S., at 97. And, collectively, the guidelines establish binding requirements as to how tickets may be marketed if they are to be sold at given prices. Under Texas law, many violations of these requirements would give consumers a cause of action (for at least actual damages, see Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.50 (1987 and Supp. 1991-1992)) for an airline’s failure to provide a particular advertised fare — effectively creating an enforceable right to that fare when the advertisement fails to include the mandated explanations and disclaimers. This case therefore appears to us much like Pilot Life, in which we held that a common-law tort and contract action seeking damages for the failure of an employee benefit plan to pay benefits “related] to” employee benefit plans and was pre-empted by ERISA. 481 U. S., at 43-44, 47-48.
In any event, beyond the guidelines’ express reference to fares, it is clear as an economic matter that state restrictions on fare advertising have the forbidden significant effect upon fares. Advertising “serves to inform the public of the... prices of products and services, and thus performs an indispensable role in the allocation of resources.” Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350, 364 (1977). Restrictions on advertising “serv[e] to increase the difficulty of discovering the lowest cost seller... and [reduce] the incentive to price competitively.” Id., at 377. Accordingly, “where consumers have the benefit of price advertising, retail prices often are dramatically lower than they would be without advertís-ing.” Ibid. As Judge Easterbrook succinctly put it, compelling or restricting “[p]rice advertising surely ‘relates to’ price.” Illinois Corporate Travel v. American Airlines, Inc., 889 F. 2d 751, 754 (CA7 1989), cert. denied, 495 U. S. 919 (1990).
Although the State insists that it is not compelling or restricting advertising, but is instead merely preventing the market distortion caused by “false” advertising, in fact the dynamics of the air transportation industry cause the guidelines to curtail the airlines’ ability to communicate fares to their customers. The expenses involved in operating an airline flight are almost entirely fixed costs; they increase very little with each additional passenger. The market for these flights is divided between consumers whose volume of purchases is relatively insensitive to price (primarily business travelers) and consumers whose demand is very price sensitive indeed (primarily pleasure travelers). Accordingly, airlines try to sell as many seats per flight as possible at higher prices to the first group, and then to fill up the flight by selling seats at much lower prices to the second group (since almost all the costs are fixed, even a passenger paying far below average cost is preferable to an empty seat). In order for this marketing process to work, and for it ultimately to redound to the benefit of price-conscious travelers, the airlines must be able to place substantial restrictions on the availability of the lower priced seats (so as to sell as many seats as possible at the higher rate), and must be able to advertise the lower fares. The guidelines severely burden their ability to do both at the same time: The sections requiring “clear and conspicuous disclosure” of each restriction make it impossible to take out small or short ads, as does (to a lesser extent) the provision requiring itemization of both the one-way and round-trip fares. Since taxes and surcharges vary from State to State, the requirement that advertised fares include those charges forces the airlines to create different ads in each market. The section restricting the use of “sale,” “discount,” or “reduced” effectively prevents the airlines from using those terms to call attention to the fares normally offered to price-conscious travelers. As the FTC observed, “[Requiring too much information in advertisements can have the paradoxical effect of stifling the information that consumers receive.” Letter from FTC to Christopher Ames, Deputy Attorney General of California, dated Mar. 11, 1988, App. to Brief for Respondent Airlines 23a. Further, §2.4, by allowing fares to be advertised only if sufficient seats are available to meet demand or if the extent of unavailability is disclosed, may make it impossible to use this marketing process at all. All in all, the obligations imposed by the guidelines would have a significant impact upon the airlines’ ability to market their product, and hence a significant impact upon the fares they charge.
In concluding that the NAAG fare advertising guidelines are pre-empted, we do not, as Texas contends, set out on a road that leads to pre-emption of state laws against gambling and prostitution as applied to airlines. Nor need we address whether state regulation of the nonprice aspects of fare advertising (for example, state laws preventing obscene depictions) would similarly “relat[e] to” rates; the connection would obviously be far more tenuous. To adapt to this case our language in Shaw, “[s]ome state actions may affect [airline fares] in too tenuous, remote, or peripheral a manner” to have pre-emptive effect. 463 U. S., at 100, n. 21. In this case, as in Shaw, “[t]he present litigation plainly does not present a borderline question, and we express no views about where it would be appropriate to draw the line.” Ibid. Finally, we note that our decision does not give the airlines carte blanche to lie to and deceive consumers; the DOT retains the power to prohibit advertisements which in its opinion do not further competitive pricing, see 49 U. S. C. App. § 1381.
* * *
We hold that the fare advertising provisions of the NAAG guidelines are pre-empted by the ADA, and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it awarded injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to those provisions. Insofar as that judgment awarded injunctive relief directed at other matters, it is reversed and the injunction vacated.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT,
National Association of Attorneys General
Task Force on the Air Travel Industry
Revised Guidelinés
INTRODUCTION
In June, 1987,- the National Association of Attorneys General (“NAAG”) directed the appointment of a Task Force of states to study the advertising and marketing practices of the airline industry in the United States. In addition to the study, the Task Force was directed to determine the nature and extent of existing unfair and deceptive airline advertising practices and to report a recommended course of action to NAAG at its meeting in December 1987.
The Task Force Report and Recommendations were adopted by NAAG at its winter meeting on December 12, 1987, with a continuing direction to the Task Force (1) to receive and examine any comments from industry, consumer groups, federal agencies, and other interested parties; (2) to evaluate these comments; and (3) to report to NAAG at its Spring 1988 meeting on the advisability of any modifications of the Guidelines.
The Task Force received written comments from the Air Transport Association, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, American Airlines, the Association of National Advertisers, the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the Federal Trade Commission, the National Association of Broadcasters, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, USAir, and the U. S. Department of Transportation. Assistant attorneys general of the Task Force states evaluated these comments, and reported their recommendations to NAAG.
On March 15, 1988, NAAG adopted the recommended changes to the frequent flyer Guidelines and directed that the comments to both the fare advertising and frequent flyer Guidelines be changed to respond to valid concerns raised by those filing comments. The Guidelines and comments herein reflect the changes directed by NAAG.
NAAG also directed the chair of NAAG’s Consumer Protection Committee to appoint four attorneys general to serve on a continuing task force to evaluate the effectiveness of the Guidelines and to continue discussions with members of the industry and other interested parties. These attorneys general are: John Van de Kamp (California), Neil F. Hartigan (Illinois), Jim Mattox (Texas), and Kenneth O. Eikenberry (Washington).
It is important to note that these Guidelines do not create any new laws or regulations regarding the advertising practices or other business practices of the airline industry. They merely explain in detail how existing state laws apply to air fare advertising and frequent flyer programs. Each Guideline is followed by a comment which summarizes:
• NAAG’s intent with respect to that Guideline.
• Any relevant comments received by the Task Force.
• Any significant changes that were made to the Guidelines.
Section 1 — Definitions
1.0 Advertisement means any oral, written, graphic or pictorial statement made in the course of solicitation of business. Advertisement includes, without limitation, any statement or representation made in a newspaper, magazine or other public publication, or contained in any notice, sign, billboard, poster, display, circular, pamphlet, or letter (collectively called “print advertisements”), or on radio or television (“broadcast commercials”).
Comment: This definition encompasses those materials and media covered by most states’false advertising statutes. “Print advertisements” and “broadcast commercial” are separated into different categories because they are afforded slightly different treatment under these Guidelines. This represents a change from an earlier draft of the Guidelines and is an attempt to address some of the airlines’ concerns regarding the difficulties of lengthy disclosures in broadcast commercials.
1.1 Award means any coupon, certificate, voucher, benefit or tangible thing which is promised, given, sold or otherwise transferred by an airline or program partner to a program member in exchange for mileage, credits, bonuses, segments or other units of value credited to a consumer as an incentive to fly on any airline or to do business with any program partner.
Comment: This definition, as well as definitions 1.2, 1.3, 14,1.6,1.9, and 1.10, is self-explanatory.
1.2 Award level means a specified amount of mileage or number of credits, bonuses, segments or other units which a program member must accumulate in order to receive an award.
1.3 Blackout date means any date on which travel or use of other program benefits is not permitted for program members seeking to redeem their award levels. This is a form of capacity control.
1.4 Capacity control means the practice by which an airline or program partner restricts or otherwise limits the opportunity of program members to redeem their award levels for travel or other benefits offered in the program.
1.5 Clear and conspicuous means that the statement, representation or term (“statement”) being disclosed is of such size, color contrast, and audibility and is so presented as to be readily noticed and understood by the person to whom it is being disclosed. All language and terms should be used in accordance with their common or ordinary usage and meaning. For example, “companion” should be used only when it means any companion (i. e., any person traveling with the program member), not solely family members. Without limiting the requirements of the preceding sentences:
(a) A statement in a print advertisement is considered clear and conspicuous if a type size is used which is at least one-third the size of the largest type size used in the advertising. However, it need not be larger than:
• 10-point type in advertisements that are 200 square inches or smaller, and
• 12-point type in advertisements that are larger than 200 square inches.
If the statement is in the body copy of the advertisement, it may be in the same size type as the largest type used in the body copy, and does not have to meet these type-size requirements.
(b) A statement in a broadcast commercial is considered clear and conspicuous if it is made orally and is as clear and understandable in pace and volume as the fare information.
(c) A statement on any billboard is considered clear and conspicuous if a type is used which is at least one-third the size of the largest one size used on the billboard.
(d) A statement required by Section 3, relating to frequent flyer programs, is considered clear and conspicuous if it is prominently located directly adjacent to the materials to which it applies. Type size should be no smaller than the most commonly-used print size in the document, but in no event smaller than 10-point type. Any reservation of any right to make future changes in the program or award levels should be located prominently at the beginning of printed materials.
Comment: One of the most deceptive aspects of current air fare advertisements is the completely inadequate manner in which those advertisements disclose the restrictions and limitations which apply to the advertised fares. The restrictions disclosed in print advertisements are rarely located near the fare advertised and often appear only in extremely small type at the bottom of the advertisement. In broadcast commercials, such disclosures are generally absent from radio advertisements, and if included at all in television commercials appear as written disclosures flashed on the screen much too quickly for the average person to read. On billboards any mention of restrictions on advertised fares is unusual.
Given this background, NAAG believes that it is necessary to define clearly for the airlines what constitutes clear and adequate disclosure in all advertising media. The type-size minima for print advertisements are aimed at making the disclosures both easy to read and noticeable. Consequently, a slightly larger size print is suggested in larger size advertisements. These type-size minima are not absolute. That is, print disclosures do not in every instance have to be in at least 10-point type, as long as they are clear and conspicuous regardless of the size of the type. The type size suggestions are merely examples of advertising practices which give an airline a reasonable expectation that it will not be sued if it follows the Guidelines. In the Task Force’s meetings with the airlines last summer, one common note expressed was that the airlines could abide by disclosure guidelines, as long as they were clear and enforced uniformly. If an airline does not choose this safe harbor and instead ventures into untested waters, it may run aground and it may not. But it is free to do so.
The comments to this Guideline were critical largely because NAAG singled out airline advertisements for this treatment. However, on the whole, the airlines indicated they could meet the type size standard relatively easily in print advertisements.
NAAG elected to encourage oral disclosures in broadcast media, because written disclosures are difficult if not impossible to read and because many people listen to, rather than watch television commercials. We continue to believe that oral disclosure is the best method of conveying information in a television commercial. However, the converse of this Guideline is not true — a disclosure in a television commercial is not necessarily deceptive if it is instead made in a video super or crawl, as long as it is still clear and conspicuous.
For safety reasons, very large type is provided for billboards.
1.6 Frequent flyer program means any program offered by an airline or program partner in which awards are offered to program members.
1.7 Limited-time availability means that the fare is only available for a specific period of time or that the fare is not available during certain blackout periods.
Comment: This definition applies to air fares that are only available certain times of the year (e. g., available December 15 through April 15), are not available at certain times

Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?
A. Conservative
B. Liberal
C. Unspeciﬁable
Answer:

Answer: B