Can corporations lie? Is the Pope still Catholic?

January 4, 2003 6:25 PM

Commondreams.org story on a California court decisionthat Nike's PR blitz about its subcontractors' sweatshops violates a law against deliberate deception (via Blogdex). "Corporations are non-living, non-breathing, legal fictions. They feel no pain. They don't need clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe, or healthy food to consume. They can live forever. They can't be put in prison. They can change their identity or appearance in a day, change their citizenship in an hour, rip off parts of themselves and create entirely new entities. Some have compared corporations with robots, in that they are human creations that can outlive individual humans, performing their assigned tasks forever." Reminds me of this: REESE (slow, but intense) Listen. Understand. That Terminator is out there. It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with...it doesn't feel pity of remorse or fear... and it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are dead.
posted by palancik (33 comments total)

Be sure to post something by the YellowTimes next. Then after that, maybe the Washington Times. Don't forget indymedia. Oh, and NewsMax is pretty good as well.
posted by four panels at 7:01 PM on January 4, 2003

You know I sure do like that original definition of corporations. I bet if we had it, we wouldn't have all the copyright issues we have today either.
Why does it seem that the writers of the constitution (and its' ammendments) knew what they were doing, but that it's been so twisted since then, that no one knows what they're doing?
posted by blue_beetle at 7:11 PM on January 4, 2003

4 panels: you list two leftist papers and two right wing papers, which seems to indicate that both extremes are not to be trusted. Stay smack dab in the middle?
posted by Postroad at 7:13 PM on January 4, 2003

Take it easy on him...it's his first FPP, and may not be familiar with all of the unstated rules yet, not to mention 4panels mood swings. ;)

It is an interesting link......
posted by lazaruslong at 7:48 PM on January 4, 2003

The constant whining about "liberal" media sources here is sickening. If you've got something to say, say it by criticizing the argument, the facts, or the reasoning behind what is said - not by discounting it because it's typical hippie pablum.

From the (apparently unread) article:

In the next few weeks the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether or not to hear Nike's appeal of the California Supreme Court's decision that Nike was engaging in commercial speech which the state can regulate under truth in advertising and other laws. And lawyers for Nike are preparing to claim before the Supreme Court that, as a "person," this multinational corporation has a constitutional free-speech right to deceive.

The question is: is corporate speech, particularly false claims intended to cover up unpopular and/or unethical behavior, protected under the First Amendment, or should it be regulated? Does a company with billions to spend on disinformation have the same rights as any other citizen?

These are the issues we should be discussing. If you don't like the way the posted article was written, fine - write to the editors of the site. Save the bitching for them, and please try to engage your brain a little bit when posting here.
posted by majcher at 7:51 PM on January 4, 2003

That's right. Nike will not stop. Ever. Until you are dead.
posted by rocketman at 8:06 PM on January 4, 2003

Majcher...I don't believe anyone was calling out liberal media, but simply calling out media with admitted biases on both sides of the spectrum. This is a very well-documented case, with tons of information from both sides and the middle - it's tough to discuss the issue when readers are presented such a heavily biased source.

That said, corporations do have free speech. If they didn't, they would be sued every day. There are already laws against deliberately deceptive advertising. As has been pointed out in similar discussions, the result of Nike losing this case is that:

a) Corporations say nothing, good or bad, about any moral policy, for fear of being sued. Would you release a document about environmental work done by your company if you knew that a misstatement would cost millions?
b) Corporations are no longer legally considered people, which brings up a host of other liability concerns.

So some disagree with Nike's statements about their actions taken for the environment. Print an article about why Nike is wrong in their assessment. To insist that the Government chill free speech would be disastrous (and legally wrong, from my knowledge of corporate law).
posted by Kevs at 8:30 PM on January 4, 2003

submitting to either side of the spectrum is believing in an illusion.
posted by Satapher at 9:07 PM on January 4, 2003

Laws are in place to protect the weak from the mighty.
Hence corporations (who are mighty) should not enjoy the same freedoms as private persons, who are weak.

Weak and squishy.
posted by spazzm at 9:18 PM on January 4, 2003

Postroad: the best way to keep informed is to read everything. The middle path will tell you nothing.
posted by KettleBlack at 9:40 PM on January 4, 2003

Weren't corporations originally created to distribute liability? If so, why do we still have them? We got rid of limited liability decades ago with Director's Liability laws.
posted by theWoodpecker at 10:17 PM on January 4, 2003

Would you release a document about environmental work done by your company if you knew that a misstatement would cost millions?

misstatement : lie, bullshit, deception

Would you lie in public if getting caught out had consequences?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 11:24 PM on January 4, 2003

theWoodpecker... the limitation of liability in a corporate structure is for the owners of a corporation, and not the directors in their roles as directors. Also, while there is the possibility of actions by shareholders against directors for breaches of fiduciary duties, those have to overcome the business judgment rule in many states. (scroll down).

The article is more an attack on corporations than it is about the Nike case; it really doesn't involve itself in the facts of the case. What were the statements in question, and where were they made?

I do like that they ask people to try to get the ACLU involved in the case. The ACLU was involved during the litigation in California. Here's part of what the ACLU had to say:

The ACLU took the position that, in this context, Nike's statements could not be considered commercial speech. Nike was taking part in a public debate in the public forum within which the debate was occurring. To provide full First Amendment protection to the speech of its critics while providing reduced First Amendment protection to Nike's speech is inconsistent with First Amendment values that seek to maximize the opportunity for both sides of the debate to be heard so that the public, not the government, can decide who is right and who is wrong.

The New York Times editorial that was quoted is also worth looking at more fully:

In a real democracy, even the people you disagree with get to have their say. Nike will likely appeal last week's ruling and the case could make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whoever hears this matter next I hope will recognize that this is not a case about unfair competition or false advertising. Nike, in response to very serious allegations on a matter of compelling public interest, issued press releases, contacted top officials at a number of colleges and universities, wrote letters to various editors and otherwise attempted to make its case.

In the United States of America that kind of speech, even if it is not always accurate, deserves unyielding protection.

posted by bragadocchio at 11:27 PM on January 4, 2003

Kevs - you're right, I did fly off the handle a bit. I wasn't referring to this article alone, but to a trend that I've been noticing in recent mefi threads. Maybe it's just me - I'll try to engage my brain a bit more, myself, before hitting it next time.

That being said, I also agree with kettleblack - reading extreme opinions, from both sides, is a lot more informative than just settling for the middle-of-the road stuff. If nothing else, it (hopefully) helps to develop one's critical thinking skills. I really enjoy flipping through the news, listening to the replies in my head, and alternately wondering how I got so conservative in my old age, or how I turned out to be such a commie freak.

Anyway, that's just about enough meta-meta-commentary from me. Zipping it.
posted by majcher at 12:05 AM on January 5, 2003

When you swear to tell the truth in court, your first amendment rights are not being violated. I don't see how laws restricting intentional deception by corporations have anything to do with their free speech rights, should they have such rights. The ACLU apparently took the position that the speech in question was not commercial, and thus not subject to the California law, but can a corporation engage in non-commercial speech? Corporations are, after all, commercial entities.
posted by Nothing at 1:09 AM on January 5, 2003

Nothing...
The speech in question was a response to allegations about their worker and environmental standards. They answered this in a public forum (newspapers, primarily). It was not advertising.

If Nike brought an ad that, summed up, stated that "We pay Indonesians ten bucks an hour, so buy Nike", then they could be legitimately sued. No problem there.

That's not what happened. And to close free speech among corporations will produce a tremendous chill effect - rather than an occasional exaggeration in a multitude of voluntary corporate reports on how the corporations are working to improve what they do for workers, what will occur is that corporations will simply not discuss the issue at all.

I think Mill said something about the facts being decided on by a public, not by a judge. It's the very premise of a free society.
posted by Kevs at 1:43 AM on January 5, 2003

The real question here is: do corporations have free speech rights at all. Hence the whole bit in the commondreams article about corporations being legal fictions as opposed to people.

The framers of the Constitution and the writers of the Bill of Rights understood free speech to be necessary for individual human beings to maintain their independence. The very idea that human beings deserve to be independent is based on the Enlightenment idea of what a human being is: a being with some kind of spiritual component, a being deserving of dignity and possessed of internal, essential dignity.
Corporations were not considered to be people by the Founding Fathers, the framers or anyone else, not because of any legal arguments, but simply because corporations don't have souls. They may be run by people who have souls, but the corporations are creations of human beings, just like governments, just like kingdoms.
corporations don't have, under the philosophical framework of the Founders, the right to do anything, because entities without souls don't have rights, rights being derived from the nature of the soul. Rights were not, in the Framers' view a thing granted by laws, but rather arise out of the essential nature of human beings - i.e., we have rights because we have souls. Law is supposed to protect those rights, but the source of the rights is not the law.

Kevs, you're missing Nothing's point, I think. He said:

but can a corporation engage in non-commercial speech? Corporations are, after all, commercial entities.

And you followed up with this:

The speech in question was a response to allegations about their worker and environmental standards. They answered this in a public forum (newspapers, primarily). It was not advertising.

But Nothing's point was, I think, that (and this especially true if you look at things through the eyes of corporations) all speech by a corporation, at any time, in any forum, is commercial speech. That is because even in a public debate like in a newspaper column, (or here on this thread), the ultimate goal of the speech is to sell more stuff Nike's concern is not with adding to the marketplace of ideas or exchange of ideas, or a pursuit of the truth, but rather to sell more shoes. Participating in the debate is more effective than conventional advertising, because it presents the appearance of caring about the issue, and also, and most importantly, provides an easy out for people who want to buy Nike shoes more than they want good to be done in the world: Nike has given loyal buyers whose consciences might be tingling a little bit means by which to dismiss accusations of sweatshop labor.

At any rate, we have a Republican Supreme Court -- the odds of any CA court ruling holding up for very long if it's not in favor of Nike are slim.
posted by eustacescrubb at 4:29 AM on January 5, 2003

rather than an occasional exaggeration in a multitude of voluntary corporate reports on how the corporations are working to improve what they do for workers, what will occur is that corporations will simply not discuss the issue at all.

They issue those reports because of public pressure, because they make them look good (and rightly so, if they are improving conditions), not because they feel like it. I simply don't see the negative affects you claim. If Nike was accused of worker exploitation and it was illegal for them to lie about it, they would still be able to defend themselves if the allegations were untrue. And if they were true, well yes, they might just not discuss the issue, but isn't that better than feeding the public lies?

And obviously corporations could only be held accountable for willful falsehoods with intent to sway public opinion, not mistakes or slight exaggerations. They would not be crushed by an onslaught of lawsuits every time they said anything unless some really stupid people drafted the laws.
posted by Nothing at 5:28 AM on January 5, 2003

corporations don’t have the right of free speech because corporations don’t have conscience, which is the source of free speech. corporations pleadings are thought by humans that protect the interests of the shareholders; so is the shareholders’ right of free speech, not the company’s. after all, corporations are entities formed by people

Some have compared corporations with robots

yeah, it’s amazing how corporations have become an incredible powerful automata controlled by some humans that, at the end, are just looking for more money.

it’s rare, but i haven’t seen anyone agreeing with spazzm. at first, laws were created to maintain order, which was usually disrupted because of the strong abusing the weak. and corporations are one of the strongest entities in earth, they can even buy governments. and this is not the first case in which big and strong corporations abuse of very weak people.
posted by trismegisto at 6:08 AM on January 5, 2003

//corporations pleadings are thought by humans that protect the interests of the shareholders; so is the shareholders’ right of free speech, not the company’s. after all, corporations are entities formed by people//

Well, okay, but if you use that logic in other contexts, it doesn't work so well; by your reasoning, guns have freedom of speech, and so do missiles, and anything whose intent was thought up by humans.
Then there's the issue that you're first saying that corporate speech is created by the humans who work for them, and then turning around and saying that corporations have free speech rights because of their shareholders. But their shareholders may (and perhaps often do) disagree with the statement generated by the employees. My free speech rights do not cover your speech.

Rarely do corporations act on the direct interest of shareholders (extreme e.g. of this: Enron, which screwed its own shareholders on purpose). Rather the corporations interpret what they think is the shareholders' main interest, or whomever holds a controlling interest in the company basically does whatever they want regardless of the opinions of the people.
The point is though that, for purposes of participating in the kind of debate that is necessary and healthy for a free society, each of those shareholders is fully within his/her rights to defend the actions of the corporation, but the corporation does not have those rights. Rights which proceed from the nature of humans as individuals do not transfer to legal fictions.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:33 AM on January 5, 2003

The leftist campaign against corporate structure is one of the most bizarre developments of fringe politics in the past few years.

Corporations' legal existence (as a reality, not as a so-called "fiction") and the limitations that they afford their shareholders, officers, directors, and employees upon personal responsibility for company liabilities are central to the entire economy. There is literally no economic activity beyond the scope of a mom-and-pop storefront which do not completely depend upon them.

The "commercial speech" doctrine was never intended to -- and, indeed does not -- impose or justify any particular limitations upon corporate speech. In fact, the doctrine has nothing to do with the identity of the speaker, but, in fact, relates only to the content of the speech. An individual, breathing, natural person is just as subject to restriction in his or her "commercial speech" (say, as the sole proprietor of a liquor store attempting to advertise a sale on booze when such advertisements are illegal, the classic case) as is a corporation (as the owner of a chain of liquor stores).
posted by MattD at 8:59 AM on January 5, 2003

Individuals have rights; corporations have responsibilities. Simple as that.

If an individual executive at Nike feels his/her rights to free speech are being harmed then fine - but a company with hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal doesn't need the protection of the little ol' law.
posted by skylar at 9:25 AM on January 5, 2003

but a company with hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal doesn't need the protection of the little ol' law.

That frightens me...because it seems to me that if a company "doesn't need the protection" of the law, then it would not need to be answerable to the law either. I don't want that.
posted by Vidiot at 11:37 AM on January 5, 2003

Corporations' legal existence (as a reality, not as a so-called "fiction") and the limitations that they afford their shareholders, officers, directors, and employees upon personal responsibility for company liabilities are central to the entire economy.

Akuta: But Vaal made the food grow. Vaal caused the rain to fall.

Kirk: I think you'll find that those things happen just as well on their own.

Star Trek, "The Apple"
(Paraphrased, I don't have a script for the episode.)
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:30 PM on January 5, 2003

Though I support the abstraction of corporate-entity-as-individual, there are a few major differences that demand attention and change the nature of things.

Public ownership is far and away the most noticable one.

Though (very) illegal for one human to claim ownership upon another, it significantly benefits the corporate model to not only allow but encourage shared ownership of its resources. The wealthiest companies acquire much of their wealth through the process of commoditizing themselves -- more than a few very well known companies, particularly in the tech field, acquired vast tracts of resources simply by using their own stock as currency.

In order for such a transaction to make economic sense, a significant amount of transparency is required -- and indeed, public companies sacrifice a tremendous amount of privacy in order to receive access to capital markets. They must provide a massive amount of truthful information regarding the state of their business in order for the markets to be considered fair and open.

Ignoring all other constitutional concerns, its the public nature of Nike that prevents it from making a "right to deceive" argument. For every year, Nike shareholders -- owners! -- demand updated news from management regarding the quality of life granted by subcontractors. These owners are concerned with the value of their own stock; they're concerned with the ability to sell the stock to others.

Deliberate deception causes two market failures:

A) Owners may retain shares longer than they would otherwise choose, and
B) Non owners may acquire shares in greater numbers than they would otherwise like.

Though it is undeniably less expensive to claim a problem has been solved, rather than to in fact solve it, this is not how transparent markets are legally allowed to function. Nike's deception is no more legitimate than, say, a PR campaign touting shoes that will never wear out -- once a company is selling itself, misleading public statements are inherently a form of false advertising. It's pretty open-and-shut: "Nike stock! Now with no child labor! Click here to purchase some."

That being said, I suspect even public ownership is unnecessary to make a false advertising claim. Simply attempting to acquire commercial benefit from the public, in terms of sales, by use of false information is as illegal for an individual selling something on eBay as it is for a company selling shoes to the world.

Regarding individual deception, I admit being unfamiliar with the precise defintion of when this is legal and when it isn't. My personal logic is as follows: If you don't have the legal right to ask the question, you don't have the legal right to receive a correct response. Airport Security has the right to know my final destination; a taxi driver taking me to the airport does not. I have no obligation to "take the fifth" with the latter; I can provide any story I so choose. I was under no obligation to say anything, so therefore I retain the right to say whatever I choose.

Nike can't use that logic -- their attempts to sell both shoes and stock to the public pre-empts the lack of obligation for truth argument quite cleanly.

I do remember some interesting individual deception cases involving marriages, and even semi-casual relationships. I remember this one quote, "Who's worse? The man who lies about going to med school, or the woman who sleeps with him because of it?" I do believe courts have penalized those who lied their way into marriages.

It was a clever attempt of Nike's, but I think its going to ultimately blow up in their face. How strange -- they'd defend a flawed PR campaign using what will eventually become horrifyingly awful PR!

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
posted by effugas at 5:01 PM on January 5, 2003

Hey effugas.....that's what your profile page is for. No need to be melodramatic.

Nice points, though.
posted by lazaruslong at 7:28 PM on January 5, 2003

Yeah, but that post was a thing of beauty, wasn't it?
posted by hincandenza at 8:17 PM on January 5, 2003

Laz--

A signature is melodramatic? Anyway, I only tack it onto something I spend a decent amount of time putting together. "You are your words."

Grant a guy his quirks :-)
posted by effugas at 10:13 PM on January 5, 2003

The California decision against Nike is located here.

The issue here is not just about the trampling of free speech, as Nike would like you to believe. It is first whether companies have any free speech rights at all, and if so, how do you distinguish non-commercial, protected speech from commercial, unprotected speech.

Frankly, I don't see how you can make such a distinction, since practically all company speech is inherently commercial -- which leads me to believe that what is ultimately at risk is our right to pass laws that prevent companies from lying to us.

It's worth noting that the next company that lies to you might not be Nike -- it might be the company that makes your medicine or your child's toys, telling you that they're perfectly safe.

On the plus side, I hear that if this decision does get overturned by the Supreme Court, we'll get back those refreshing, healthy cigarettes that people used to smoke back in the '50s...
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:53 AM on January 6, 2003

which leads me to believe that what is ultimately at risk is our right to pass laws that prevent companies from lying to us

No doubt, but that is still part of the leftist campaign against corporate structure, one of the most bizarre developments of fringe politics in the past few years.

The important part is not to lose focus on the key priorities.
posted by magullo at 5:30 AM on January 6, 2003

I certainly believe companies should have free speech rights, just as I believe wealthy individuals should have free speech rights, just as I believe *all* individuals should have free speech rights.

But there's a difference between deception and fraud. The latter has a special meaning, one corporations are very intimately familiar with. Watch:

If somebody asks what I do, and I say I'm a laywer, I've broken no law -- I may be lying through my teeth, but I was under no obligation to tell the truth.

If a potential employer asks me what I do, and I say I'm a lawyer -- even go so far as to put a law school and previous office of employment on my resume -- suddenly, the same act has gone from deception to outright fraud. I am attempting to derive financial benefits from others based on intentionally misleading *factual data*.

Corporations have been quite clear that they'll fire you -- no matter how decent of a job you've been doing -- if they find out you fluffed your resume. As far as I know, nobody's claimed a free speech right to do so.

Nike's intentional misstatement of the facts is very much in the same category, folks. On their public resume -- one that very much determines how valuable people consider Nike as a long term going concern -- "abuses little children" is a tremendous liability. Nike would very much like to be rid of this liability. Nike stockholders would very much like to be rid of it as well, as they've been pointing out year after year at the meetings. But simply making the claim does not make it so, and just as lying on one's resume makes the corporation doubt all future work, Nike's deception makes me doubt all statements they would make in the future.

This includes their financial statements. Defraud is as defraud does.

Here's the thing I think alot of people are missing: If you say that corporations posess fewer rights than the people that compose it, that means that the same group of people could simply fail to organize a corporation and commit the very same acts as individuals -- and somehow it'd be OK. It wouldn't be! It doesn't matter who you are, big or small, you don't get to lie about the baby food being edible, the toys being safe, or the shoes being made by well paid, non-sweatshop employees.

Now, here's an interesting question -- if a corporation is donating money to a charity not because they believe in the cause, but because they want people associated with the cause to like them more and perhaps give them money -- can they still say they're donating funds because "they believe strongly in the rightness of the charity"?

Again, I think the only guidance we can find comes from individual rights. Other people (excluding officers of the court) have no right to know our true intentions behind a given action -- hell, the honest truth is we ourselves rarely know the real reason we do anything! Since the truth in this case is personal and private on the individual scale, I don't see a problem with that extending to the corporate.

But this is a "why" question that ultimately ends up as a query into a thought process. That is much different than a "what" question that demands decription of a physical or fiduciary reality. It might affect us emotionally to determine somebody's motivations were false, but action has always been in another category entirely. I can see a bright line between professing false motivations and describing false actions.

What do the rest of you think?

--Dan
posted by effugas at 5:41 AM on January 6, 2003

// Ignoring all other constitutional concerns, its the public nature of Nike that prevents it from making a "right to deceive" argument. //

Public companies deceive people all the time. Hello: Enron!?!

//Here's the thing I think alot of people are missing: If you say that corporations posses fewer rights than the people that compose it, that means that the same group of people could simply fail to organize a corporation and commit the very same acts as individuals -- and somehow it'd be OK. //

No, they couldn't. In order for Nike to do business, it has to have a corporate charter in some state or another. To make and sell shoes, one must have all manner of business licenses, and these require legal status as a corporation.
Never mind the fact that only a very small percentage of the people working for Nike would prefer to be involved in the making of or selling of shoes. They were hired, many of them probably waiting for the job with the best pay/benefits, and on their own, they'd never choose to get involved in the big-time shoe industry. definitely if they rounded a corner on the street and saw a guy recruiting people to help him make and sell some shoes but the guy had no infrastructure, and couldn't really guarantee they'd get paid regularly and consistently, they'd keep walking.

//if a corporation is donating money to a charity not because they believe in the cause, but because they want people associated with the cause to like them more and perhaps give them money -- can they still say they're donating funds because "they believe strongly in the rightness of the charity"?//

Er. Not if they want to be truthful.

//Other people (excluding officers of the court) have no right to know our true intentions behind a given action -- hell, the honest truth is we ourselves rarely know the real reason we do anything! Since the truth in this case is personal and private on the individual scale, I don't see a problem with that extending to the corporate.//

Because (to quote Uncle Ben): "With great power comes great responsibility."

If you make and sell a product, you are responsible to those who buy it, produce it and are affected by its production for how it affects them. You are responsible to them. You are morally required to consider their health, emotionally, socially, spiritually and physically. This is true of individuals - just think of what would happen if you discovered someone you knew personally had taken ill from some cookies you sold them at a PTA bake sale. (You'd actually be legally responsible too, in that case.)
What happens with corporations is that those who profit most for them are dissociated from the effects their profit-making has on others. They can be a comfortable distance from the waste and sickness and death their profits require. It provides the CEOs and directors of companies an easy moral out; they can claim they're acting on behalf off the shareholders ("only doing my job!") and the shareholders, in turn, can claim ignorance, especially when they're investing in terms of shifting investment packages like mutual funds, where brokers are sometimes constantly moving money from one corporation's stock to another.

//that is still part of the leftist campaign against corporate structure, one of the most bizarre developments of fringe politics in the past few years.//

You keep saying that. How about: instead of dyslogizing what you don't understand, trying to understand it?

And I take issue with the characterization of "the campaign" (if one could call it that) as "leftist". I would argue that my beef with big corporations is inherently a conservative beef: I seek to protect what is old and lasting from what is newfangled and ephemeral; I seek to protect what is local and particular from what is global/national and universal; I seek to protect what is venerable and beautiful about traditions and culture I was raised with from the gobbling appropriation by advertising and the neo-shamanism Madison Ave. religion called "branding"; I seek to uphold genuine spirituality and religion(s) against the idolatries of "market democracy" and Where-Is-My-Cheese false prophet-guruism; I seek to hold people to be responsible for the effects of their actions. Those are conservative concerns. I am not against big corporations because I'm against capitalism, but because I'm for thrift and conservation and responsibility. I'm for Mom and Pop businesses and local economies.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:25 AM on January 6, 2003

Regarding this excerpt from effugas: I think the only guidance we can find comes from individual rights. Other people (excluding officers of the court) have no right to know our true intentions behind a given action -- hell, the honest truth is we ourselves rarely know the real reason we do anything! Since the truth in this case is personal and private on the individual scale, I don't see a problem with that extending to the corporate.
But this is a "why" question that ultimately ends up as a query into a thought process. That is much different than a "what" question that demands decription of a physical or fiduciary reality.

Can the standard FTC guide about "fuzzy claims" apply here, too? A commercial statement like "Our shoes will put a spring in your step" or a claim like "We care about labor rights" is not actionable. On the other hand, something like "With our shoes, you can jump 247% higher" or "We pay our laborers 20% more than X country's average" could be taken as a truth-in-advertising issue. That's part of what the FTC does for a living.

Which brings me to the facts of this case. We don't really know them yet. This NYT article explains that the case has not been argued yet.

However, I believe the claims in question were in press releases or bylined articles (i.e., placed by PR professionals). Anyway, I'm on the side of those above who argued that corporate status may not matter. It's commercial speech, and as such, the First Amendment should not protect Nike's right to deceive (if that's what they've done) and create multiple market failures.

Great posts everyone, by the way.
posted by micropublishery at 10:49 AM on January 15, 2003