Reference no: EM132092385

Eliza took her car to her regular mechanic, who had a private business. The mechanic often advertised on billboards, writing “Reliable fixes and low costs” and “The cheapest prices.” After getting her engine checked, she incurred over $2,000 in costs. Out of curiosity, she went to a competing private firm that also fixed cars, and the private firm said that she paid significantly more to her mechanic than the costs of both the parts and labor. Eliza sued her mechanic, alleging that she had been misled by her mechanics advertisements. The court applied the Central Hudson test, and found the mechanic’s advertisements were misleading. The mechanic argued that pursuant to his first amendment rights, his speech was protected, especially because they were generalizations that should not have been taken literally. The court ruled in favor of Eliza, ordering the mechanic to pay Eliza for damages and to take the advertisements down.

But what if the facts of the case were different? Select the appropriate set of facts below that would change the outcome of the case.

a) The court found that the advertisements were not inherently misleading. However, it did find that regulating the advertisement in question was more extensive than necessary to protect the public interest.

b) The court found that the advertising in question constituted commercial speech.

c) The court found that the advertisements in question did not advance the state’s interest.

d) The court finds that the speech in the advertisements is not misleading, but that the state’s interest would be advanced if the advertising in question were restricted.