abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

هذه الصفحة غير متوفرة باللغة العربية وهي معروضة باللغة English

الدعوى القضائية

20 إبريل 1998

Nike lawsuit (Kasky v Nike, re denial of labour abuses)

الحالة: CLOSED

Date lawsuit was filed
20 إبريل 1998
غير معروف
مستهلك
موقع رفع الدعوى: الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية
موقع الحادثة: فيتنام
نوع التقاضي: مشتركة بين البلدان

الشركات

Nike الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية الأدوات الرياضية, الملابس والمنسوجات, الأحذية

المصادر

Snapshot: In 1998, a lawsuit was filed against Nike in California state court alleging unfair and deceptive practices for failing to disclose poor working conditions at Nike's overseas supplier factories. The Court held Nike's statements were commercial speech and subjected to less protection than non-commercial speech. Nike and the plaintiff settled the case and Nike agreed to strengthen workplace monitoring.

Factual Background

Prior to the lawsuit, various news reports alleged poor working conditions at Nike’s overseas supplier factories.  In response, Nike issued press releases and other public statements rebutting the allegations.  Nike's statements claimed that workers who make Nike products are protected from physical and sexual abuse, they are paid in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations governing wages and hours, they are paid on average double the applicable local minimum wage, they receive a “living wage”, they receive free meals and health care, and their working conditions are in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations regarding occupational health and safety.  

Legal Argument

Marc Kasky alleged that Nike had engaged in unfair and deceptive practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. Specifically, Kasky alleged that Nike’s public statements regarding the working conditions in its overseas suppliers’ factories contained false information and material omissions of fact. 

Legal Proceeding

Marc Kasky filed suit against Nike in California state court in 1998. Nike claimed that the lawsuit was barred by the US Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

The trial court agreed with Nike and dismissed the claim.  Kasky appealed, and the California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.  Kasky appealed further to the California Supreme Court, which reversed the lower courts’ rulings and held that Nike’s statements were commercial speech which is entitled to less constitutional protection than non-commercial speech.  Following the California Supreme Court’s ruling, Nike appealed (petitioned for certiorari) to the US Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the appeal. 

In 2003, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in this case stating that it had granted certiorari improvidently and dismissed the case, which effectively let stand the California Supreme Court’s ruling.

Latest Update

Several months after the US Supreme Court decision, Nike and Kasky agreed to settle the case for $1.5 million.  The settlement involved investments by Nike to strengthen workplace monitoring and factory worker programmes.

- “Nike's Big Ticking-Off”, Duncan Campbell, Guardian [UK], 17 Nov 2003

- “Nike Settles Speech Case”, William McCall, Associated Press, 13 Sep 2003

- “Supreme Court Won't Rule in Case About Nike and Anti-Globalization”, Anne Gearan, Associated Press, 26 Jun 2003

- Nike: NIKE, Inc. and Kasky Announce Settlement of Kasky v. Nike First Amendment Case, 12 Sep 2003

- ReclaimDemocracy.org: Kasky v. Nike [background on case and links to legal documents]

- US Supreme Court: Nike v. Kasky, 26 Jun 2003

- Supreme Court of California: [PDF] Kasky v. Nike , 2 May 2002

الجدول الزمني

معلومات الخصوصية

هذا الموقع يستخدم ملفات تعريف الارتباط وتكنولوجيا التخزين الشبكي. يمكنك ضبط خيارات الخصوصية أدناه. تسري التغييرات فورًا.

للمزيد من المعلومات عن استخدامنا للتخزين الشبكي، انظر سياستنا في استخدام البيانات وملفات تعريف الارتباط

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

ملفات تعريف الارتباط التحليلية

ON
OFF

When you access our website we use Google Analytics to collect information on your visit. Accepting this cookie will allow us to understand more details about your journey, and improve how we surface information. All analytics information is anonymous and we do not use it to identify you. Google provides a Google Analytics opt-out add on for all popular browsers.

Promotional cookies

ON
OFF

We share news and updates on business and human rights through third party platforms, including social media and search engines. These cookies help us to understand the performance of these promotions.

خيارات الخصوصية على هذا الموقع

هذا الموقع يستخدم ملفات تعريف الارتباط وتكنولوجيا التخزين الشبكي لتحسين تجربتك لما يتجاوز الخصائص الرئيسية الضرورية.