New York State Authority V Bad Frog Brewery

Issue In May 1996 Bad Frog put in application for brand label approval and registration pursuant to section 107-a(4)(a) of New York’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, and was denied that application in July (Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority). The issue presented here is whether banning the Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. beer label protecting children from vulgar and profane advertising, and by doing so, is New York State Authority (NYSLA) denying Bad Frog Brewery protection by the First Amendment under Commercial Speech.

Rule of Law

Commercial speech under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S 557, 100 S. Ct. 2343, 65 L. Ed.2d 31 (1980). Under Commercial speech Bad Frog label could be

beer label protecting children from vulgar and profane advertising, and by doing so, is New York State Authority (NYSLA) denying Bad Frog Brewery protection by the First Amendment under Commercial Speech. Under the Commercial Speech a court must determine these criteria’s: Whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial, whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Here, New York State has two substantial interests “promoting temperance and respect for the law” and “protecting minors from profane advertising.” Nevertheless, New York State failed to show that Bad Frog beer label directly advances the States interest of “promotes temperance and respect for the law” by other marketing gimmicks in the same way as “Budweiser Frogs,” and “Bud-Ice Penguins (Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority).” However, the Court can accept the New York State’s contention that the label rejection would advance the governmental interest in protection children from vulgar and profane advertising. The banned on Bad Frogs beer label is more extensive that is necessary to serve the interest in protection children, by restriction that already in place, such as sale location and limitation it would limit exposure to the children to the labels. The State of New York did not fulfill the criteria’s that was required under the Commercial