44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island (1996) advanced First Amendment protections
for commercial speech when it struck down a state law banning the
advertising of alcohol prices.

The Supreme Court on July 6, 2020, struck down a provision in a robocall
law that allowed government to use robocalls to collect debt, saying it was
an impermissible speech discrimination under the First Amendment. The Court
in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants found the rule a
content-based exception.

Bigelow v. Virginia (1975) involved an ad printed for an abortion clinic
and established that at least some commercial advertising should receive
First Amendment protection.

The Court in Borgner v. Florida Board of Dentistry (2002) declined to
review a ruling upholding a law requiring dentists to include disclaimers
in ads for unrecognized specialties.

In Edenfield v. Fane (1993), the Supreme Court said direct solicitation of
clients was within the First Amendment rights of certified public
accountants.

In Friedman v. Rogers (1979), the Court struck down a First Amendment
challenge to a Texas law that prohibited optometrists from advertising
under a trade name.

Although parody, like satire, is generally recognized as protected speech under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. ____ (2023), demonstrates that this is not always so when it comes to trademarking.   The case, which was unanimously decided in an opinion written by

In Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001), the Supreme Court invalidated
state advertising restrictions on tobacco products, saying they violated
the First Amendment.

Nike v. Kasky (2003) raised, but did not resolve, contemporary issues
regarding First Amendment protection for corporate speech in matters of
public concern.

Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995) said that a law restricting beer labels
from displaying alcohol content was an infringement of First Amendment
commercial speech rights.

Sorrell v. IMS (2011) invalidated a state law prohibiting the sale of
pharmacy data as an impermissible restriction on free speech guaranteed in
the First Amendment.

In 2001, the Supreme Court overturned a federal program that required
mushroom producers to subsidize generic advertising for mushrooms. In
United States v. United Foods, Inc., the Court said the law was a clear
case of compelled speech and violated the First Amendment rights of the
companies.

Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) ruled that commercial speech is not
protected by the First Amendment. It has made assessing commercial speech
under the First Amendment harder.