Opinion ID: 4413296
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Unduly Burdensome

Text: Finally, CTIA argues that Berkeley’s compelled disclosure is unconstitutional under Zauderer because it is “unduly burdensome.” NIFLA, 138 S. Ct. at 2377 (quoting Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651). In American Beverage, we considered en banc a similar challenge to a San Francisco ordinance requiring health warnings on some advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages. The San Francisco ordinance included “a requirement that the warning occupy at least 20% of the advertisement and be set off with a rectangular border.” American Beverage, 916 F.3d at 754 (quoting City & Cty. of S.F., Cal., Health Code art. 42, div. I, § 4203(b)). We concluded that San Francisco had not met its burden of showing that the warning “does not ‘drown out’ Plaintiffs’ messages and ‘effectively rule[] out the possibility of having [an advertisement] in the first place.” Id. at 757 (quoting NIFLA, 138 S. Ct. at 2378). We thus held that the 20% requirement was “unduly burdensome when balanced against its likely burden on protected speech.” Berkeley’s ordinance, in contrast, does not unduly burden speech. As noted above, the ordinance may be satisfied by a single 8.5 x 11 posted notice or 5 x 8 handout to which the retailer may 34 CTIA V. CITY OF BERKELEY add additional information so long as that information is distinct from the compelled disclosure. This minimal requirement does not interfere with advertising or threaten to drown out messaging by the cell phone retailers subject to the requirement.