Opinion ID: 1467361
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Restriction on Commercial Speech

Text: [¶ 16] Although Verizon has the burden of proving that a change of circumstances justified lifting the marketing restriction, the Commission has the responsibility of determining that the marketing restriction does not impermissibly abridge Verizon's free speech rights. Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 770, 113 S.Ct. 1792, 123 L.Ed.2d 543 (1993) (stating that [i]t is well established that [t]he party seeking to uphold a restriction on commercial speech carries the burden of justifying it) (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 17] In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York , the Supreme Court summarized the four-part analysis used to determine the constitutionality of governmental restrictions on commercial speech: At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. 477 U.S. at 566, 106 S.Ct. 2686. Both parties acknowledged at oral argument that the Commission did not articulate a Central Hudson analysis. Although the Commission extensively reviewed the current market status, the Commission's decision does not permit us to conduct a meaningful review of the First Amendment issue on appeal. Accordingly, we decline to address whether the continued restriction on the plaintiff's commercial and noncommercial speech was constitutional because neither the legal issues nor the factual questions were separately addressed by the Commission. Bd. of Trustees of the State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 485, 109 S.Ct. 3028, 106 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989). We remand this matter to the Commission to allow it to conduct the appropriate First Amendment analysis. See Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343. [¶ 18] Because we remand for further analysis, we need not, and do not, reach the issue of whether, independent of First Amendment considerations, the record supports the decision not to modify the 1997 order. The entry is: Commission's order vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.