Opinion ID: 1882186
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Substantial State Interest

Text: Unlike rational basis review, the Central Hudson standard does not permit us to supplant the precise interests put forward by the State with other suppositions. Went for It, 515 U.S. at 624, 115 S.Ct. 2371 (quoting Edenfield, 507 U.S. at 768, 113 S.Ct. 1792). In the instant case, the State asserts the following interests in support of section 817.234(8): (1) The State has a substantial interest in protecting the public from unnecessarily inflated insurance rates for personal injury protection and liability insurance. (2) The State has a substantial interest in preventing fraud and misrepresentation by professionals. (3) The State has a substantial interest in protecting the privacy of its citizens involved in motor vehicle accidents. (4) The State has a substantial interest in promoting the ethical standards of professionals, consistent with the laws of Florida, who make claims for personal injury protection benefits and motor vehicle tort claims related to the motor vehicle accidents of its citizens. Petitioner's Initial Brief on the Merits at 26. It would be difficult for us to conclude that the above interests are not indeed substantial. The United States Supreme Court, in Edenfield, specifically concluded that States have a substantial interest in the prevention of fraud and misrepresentation. See 507 U.S. at 768-69, 113 S.Ct. 1792 (citing Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771-72, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976)). The Court likewise concluded that States have a substantial interest in protecting the privacy of their citizens, and has specifically approved that interest as it relates to personal injury victims involved in automobile accidents. See Went For It, 515 U.S. at 625, 115 S.Ct. 2371. Finally, the Court has also concluded that States have a substantial interest in promoting the ethical conduct of professionals who practice within their boundaries. See id. (quoting Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 792, 95 S.Ct. 2004, 44 L.Ed.2d 572 (1975)); see also Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 98 S.Ct. 1912, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978). Accordingly, we determine that the State has satisfied its burden of setting forth substantial interests in support of this restriction on commercial speech.