(Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc.)
.pdf
School
California State University, Northridge**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
BLAW 208
Subject
Communications
Date
Dec 16, 2024
Pages
1
Uploaded by ConstableMoonTiger37
Jewel Food Stores Inc. took the opportunity to post a free advertisement in the Times paper,using Micheal Jordan’s likeness and identity to congratulate him in their store promotion. Jordanclaimed that Jewel violated his right to privacy by using his identity in the ad. However, becausethe advertisement was not considered defamation and was ‘non commercial’, meaning Jewelnever made direct profit from it being published, the company claimed that they retained their1st Amendment Rights.While the 1st Amendment Right does protect non-commercial speech, the similarity of thecircumstances made the court investigate the premise of classification of speech inadvertisements, referring to the Supreme Court case, Bolger. Bolger set up the framework ofcommercial based speech, regardless of the monetary exchange involved with the advertising,with the following considerations. 1, The speech is an advertisement; 2, The speech refers to aspecific product; 3, The speaker has economic motivations.Within Jewel’s advertisement, there are two functions; Paying compliments to Jordan on hiscareer and promoting Jewel’s supermarket. Addressing the 2nd element of Bolger’s layout, theadvertisement does not aim the audience toward a specific product at Jewel Food Stores. Yet, itfulfills the other two requirements because it is classified as an advertisement and serveseconomic pursuits by using its logo and slogan, ‘good things are around the corner’ with theembellishment of a public face that would gain the company traction for the association. Thebenefit of the advertisement for Jewel proves a lack of goodwill in their intentions, even if they’renot using Jordan to explicitly promote anything or endorse them.Following Bolger’s precedent, the protection of the 1st amendment was revoked and the rulingin Jewel’s favor was reversed, opening the case for further proceedings on Jordan’s publicityclaim and other issues with the advertisement.
