Several manufacturers of disposable plastic bags have filed suit against reusable bag maker ChicoBag for false and misleading claims about the environmental superiority of its reusable bags over disposable bags. The complaint claims that ChicoBag’s advertising and promotional materials violate the federal Lanham Act and the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaining bag makers — Hilex Poly Co., Superbag Co. and Advance Polybag Inc. — they have been harmed by ChicoBag’s exaggerated claims about their products. Among other things, ChicoBag created the “BagMonster” to symbolize the number of disposable bags used by the average American, and has also launched this site about the suit.
There appears to be no dispute that ChicoBag made some incorrect or poorly substantiated claims. A company website acknowledges that it had relied upon some out-of-date sources, and has since updated and documented the claims made on its “Learn the Facts” page and elsewhere. This has not stopped the suit, however. Here’s more from the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Chico News & Review.
The context of this dispute is a broader debate about the merits of disposable products. ChicoBag may exaggerate the threat posed by the accumulation of solid waste, but there are other environmental (and even economic) reasons one may prefer reusable bags. The ChicoBag itself is a handy little product, even if it won’t save the earth.
As this litigation proceeds it will be interesting to see whether ChicoBag mounts a First Amendment defense. The company’s claims are as much about spreading an environmental message as they are promoting a product — and public debate over such questions would seem to be worth constitutional protection, even if economically motivated claims about a specific product are not. Somewhat ironically, one of the last companies to make this argument, Nike Inc., did so against environmentalist and human right activist attacks. That case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the justices punted in Nike v. Kasky. Perhaps Hilex Poly v. ChicoBag will provide the Court with an opportunity to revisit this issue and determine when a company’s commercial claims end and participation in public debate begins.
4C says:
Obviously, they have it in the bag.
June 12, 2011, 10:53 amArthur Kirkland says:
The suggestion of a First Amendment defense is on the right track: ChicoBag should assert the defense that enables televangelists, tent revivalists, faith healers, and millionaire preachers to get away with separating customers from dollars through ridiculous claims.
June 12, 2011, 12:25 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Plastic Bag Makers Sue ChicoBag for ... | Insurance and Accident ClaimsInsurance and Accident Claims says:
[...] some out-of-date sources, and has since updated and documented the …See the original post: The Volokh Conspiracy » Plastic Bag Makers Sue ChicoBag for …Related posts:Read Street: Bilderberg Group meeting sparks conspiracy claims …Read Street: [...]
June 12, 2011, 12:28 pmSam Hall says:
A First Amendment defense for what is clearly product promotion? You want Ford claiming the Volt batteries are made from blended puppies?
June 12, 2011, 12:42 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Ever watch Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Ernest Angley, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, Paula White, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, Jim Bakker, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, T.D. Jakes, Kathryn Kuhlman, Jimmy Swaggart, or Jack Van Impe?
June 12, 2011, 1:01 pmSam Hall says:
Arthur Kirkland says:
Ever watch (snip)
Not a one of them. But I would expect them to lie since that goes with that business model. However, they aren’t selling regular products in a store.
June 12, 2011, 1:31 pmRagebot says:
I am not convinced some of the tree hugers are any less religious fanatics than the TV preachers you snipped out.
June 12, 2011, 1:47 pmJonathan H. Adler says:
So, no first amendment protection if a business or individual with an economic stake in reusable bags says the following:
June 12, 2011, 2:05 pm“The earth is getting overtaken with excess waste. Each person is responsible for using 500 disposable plastic bags a year, when reusable bags can work just as well. Each person should do their part to reduce their ecological footprint.”
Como é??? « De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum says:
[...] em uma notícia algo relacionada, os produtores de sacolas de plástico da civilização não são tão bocós assim. LikeBe the first to like this [...]
June 12, 2011, 3:03 pmIspep Teid says:
Yes. I watch this Benny Hinn video every few months. I’m a big fan of the part at 1:12.
June 12, 2011, 6:40 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I lived near Kathryn Kuhlman’s house for a number of years. Neighbors said that Benny Hinn would occasionally visit the property, apparently without fanfare. Perhaps he is loony enough to believe some of the nonsense.
Since Kathryn left (or so Satan would have us believe), the Catholics and Mormons have constructed religious buildings within a block or so of her home. Hoping some of her magic or profitability might rub off?
June 12, 2011, 7:29 pmJoe Horton says:
If there is a valid case against ChicoBag, is there also a valid case against politicians who lie to us to get elected? Or, sorta like Napoleon and Snowball, are their First Amendment rights more equal than ours?
;-)
June 12, 2011, 8:32 pmMikeT says:
I’ll have to admit, watching Jack van Impe was one of my guilty pleasures in grad school. The unintentional humor of his show was great, my favorite part each week was his wife Rexella reading the “news”, and Jack interpreting each story to mean the end-times are near.
June 12, 2011, 10:04 pm