Ctia - the Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, 873 F.3d 774

Background

City of Berkeley required retailers to display a point-of-sale disclosure about cell phone radiation; the ordinance compelled factual, uncontroversial speech at the point of sale.
Retailers challenged the requirement as an unconstitutional compelled commercial speech burden under the First Amendment.
A Ninth Circuit panel upheld the City under the Zauderer standard (allowing compelled factual and uncontroversial commercial disclosures).
Appellant petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc; Judges W. Fletcher and Christen concurred in denying rehearing en banc; Judge Friedland would have granted rehearing; Judge Wardlaw dissented from denial of rehearing en banc.
The court declined en banc rehearing, aligning with several sister circuits that permit compelled purely factual and uncontroversial commercial speech even absent deception.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zauderer permits government to compel purely factual, uncontroversial commercial disclosures at point of sale even without consumer deception	Ordinance is unconstitutional; Zauderer should be limited to disclosures preventing consumer deception	Zauderer applies broadly to allow compelled factual, uncontroversial commercial speech; City may require the disclosure	Zauderer applied broadly; disclosure upheld under Zauderer (rehearing en banc denied)
Proper standard for compelled commercial disclosures (Zauderer vs. Central Hudson)	Central Hudson intermediate scrutiny should apply to compelled, non-misleading commercial speech	Zauderer rational-basis disclosure rule governs purely factual, uncontroversial compelled disclosures	Majority applied Zauderer; dissent argued Central Hudson should govern unless preventing deception
Whether compelled disclosure here was misleading or unduly burdensome	Disclosure is misleading and not justified; harms commercial speech rights	Disclosure is factual/uncontroversial and permissible; not misleading in a legal sense	Panel treated the disclosure as legally permissible; dissent emphasized potential misleading character
Whether courts should avoid creating circuit split about Zauderer’s scope	Plaintiff urged narrower reading to avoid municipal compelled speech	City urged consistency with circuits allowing broad Zauderer application	Court declined en banc review, citing alignment with multiple circuits that read Zauderer broadly

Key Cases Cited

Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (disclosure rule for preventing consumer deception and rational-basis standard for certain compelled disclosures)
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (intermediate scrutiny test for commercial speech restrictions)
Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) (heightened scrutiny for certain compelled regulations of speech)
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (right to refrain from speaking is protected under First Amendment)
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996) (limits on government regulation of commercial speech to shape consumer behavior)
Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. SEC, 800 F.3d 518 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (upholding compelled point-of-sale disclosures; reading of Zauderer discussed)
Am. Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 760 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (applying Zauderer to labeling requirement)
Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n v. Rowe, 429 F.3d 294 (1st Cir. 2005) (compelled disclosure of factual commercial information upheld)
Safelite Group v. Jepsen, 764 F.3d 258 (2d Cir. 2014) (examining scope of Zauderer and applying intermediate scrutiny in certain contexts)
N.Y. State Rest. Ass’n v. N.Y. City Bd. of Health, 556 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2009) (upholding compelled commercial disclosures)
Nat’l Elec. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, 272 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2001) (applying Zauderer to a labeling law)
Discount Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States, 674 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2012) (discussing compelled disclosure doctrine)
CTIA–The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 854 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2017) (panel decision upholding Berkeley disclosure; central case here)
Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 871 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2017) (related compelled-disclosure decision relying on CTIA)
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. La. Attorney Disciplinary Bd., 632 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2011) (compelled speech sustained where preventing deception)
1-800-411-Pain Referral Serv. v. Otto, 744 F.3d 1045 (8th Cir. 2014) (upholding compelled disclosure to prevent consumer deception)