Legal wrangles over mandatory generic advertising of US commodities show no signs of being immediately resolved.
Last week's Supreme Court ruling that the government can make beef barons pay for national advertising campaigns in which they do not want to participate [WAMN: 26-May-05], may have far reaching implications for other producers.
The farmers argued that the Beef. It's what's for dinner campaign, paid for by a government-imposed levy, violated their constitutional rights by forcing speech.
The Court disagreed and has now told lower courts to look again at similar challenges by producers of other commodities - such as oranges, pork and milk - in the light of its ruling.
These producers have in the past successfully challenged government trade bodies over levies for ad campaigns they oppose.
Data sourced from AdAge (USA); additional content by WARC staff