This was one of the best semesters to teach American Constitutional Law, especially in China because of the many relevant news articles, U.S. Supreme Court Cases on the docket, and good examples about citizenship thanks to a retired NBA player 😀
In class we discussed Freedom of Speech and of course one of the related sub-topics, Freedom of Commercial Speech. For those of you who do not know, Commercial Speech generally advertises a product or a service. To determine if a restriction on commercial speech is permissible, you need to consider if 1) the product being advertised is legal, and 2) whether or not the speech is misleading to consumers. IF the government is allowed to regulate commercial speech does it have a substantial reason for a regulation? Does the restriction advance a government interest? Is the restriction narrowly tailored to achieve a government interest? Right after the lesson, the Lumosity case broke in the U.S.
Lumosity brain-training game ‘deceived customers’ – http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35241778
Lumosity claimed that playing its games for 15-20 minutes a day would decrease the chances of dementia, alzheimers, stroke, and brain injuries. The US Federal Trade Commission investigated Lumosity’s claims, decided the claims were fake, and then wanted to fine the company $50 million dollars. Because the company could not afford the fines, the fine was reduced to $2 million and a chance to allow its subscribers to cancel their contracts.