DEX MEDIA WEST, INC. v. City of Seattle
793 F. Supp. 2d 1213
W.D. Wash.2011Background
- Six-month precursory public process led City to enact Ordinance 123427 banning unsolicited yellow pages unless compliance; opt-out option created and funded by a 14-cent per book fee plus a front-cover opt-out message; Plaintiffs Dex, SuperMedia, and YPA publish/advertise yellow pages and rely on advertising, not direct consumer charges; Yellow pages contain substantial commercial advertising constituting roughly 15–35% of pages; Ordinance defines terms and imposes license, opt-out registry, and distribution fee to address waste and privacy concerns; opt-out registry had 136,651 requests by residents as of May 12, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether yellow pages are commercial speech under First Amendment | Dex argues noncommercial protection applies | City contends directories are commercial speech | Commercial speech; not fully protected |
| Whether the Ordinance satisfies Central Hudson intermediate scrutiny | Regulation not narrowly tailored to substantial interests | Opt-out, licensing, and fee provide reasonable fit | Ordinance satisfies Central Hudson |
| Whether the ordinance violates the Dormant Commerce Clause | Exemption for membership orgs and small tonnage shows discrimination | Facially neutral and evenhanded; benefits exceed burdens | Not discriminatory; benefits justify burden |
| Whether the required opt-out/disclosure message on covers and websites constitutes compelled speech under Zauderer | Message coerces commercial speech | Message is purely factual and related to opt-out program | Complies with Zauderer; factual and non-deceptive |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1983) (commercial speech boundaries and ads with public-interest context)
- Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1980) (intermediate scrutiny framework for commercial speech)
- Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1988) (inextricable intertwining of commercial with fully protected speech)
- Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1989) (distinction between commercial and noncommercial demonstrations)
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1985) (compelled commercial disclosures allowed if factual and uncontroversial)
- Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 (U.S. 1970) (privacy in home and opt-out as permissible speech restriction)
- Discovery Network, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 507 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1993) (reasonable fit requires regulation meaningfully advances goals)
- LensCrafters, Inc. v. Brown, 567 F.3d 521 (9th Cir. 2009) (dormant Commerce Clause similarly structured analysis; similarly situated entities)
- Black Star Farms LLC v. Oliver, 600 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence of discriminatory effect under dormant Commerce Clause)