|
May 2009 Update
The following summarizes key government affairs activities of the Entertainment Merchants Association during the past month.
Louisiana Deceptive Trade Practice Bill
Louisiana Senate Bill 152, a "deceptive trade practices measure" continues to move forward, but has been significantly modified.
As introduced, S.B. 152 would have amended the Louisiana Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices statute to declare that an unfair or deceptive trade practice occurs when a retail business sells or distributes any goods or services that are labeled or advertised with an age restriction or recommendation to any person who is under the restricted or recommended age. It would also have required retailers to check the ID of every purchaser, regardless of age, of a covered product or service and post signs declaring that they check IDs for such products and services.
All of these provisions have now been dropped from the bill.
In their place, the sponsor has proposed to declare that an unfair or deceptive trade practice occurs when a retail business sells or distributes material containing pornographic depictions to minors on at least five separate occasions. Violators would be subject to all the remedies under the Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices law.
[The revised bill was approved by a Senate committee in early June. However, there are significant constitutional problems with the bill, and it is expected to undergo further revision. EMA remains opposed to the measure.]
VSDA v. Schwarzenegger
California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting the Court to review the February appellate court ruling in Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger that found a 2005 California video game restriction law to be unconstitutional. (EMA is a co-plaintiff in this case.)
In the February ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that held a 2005 video game restriction law violates of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court now must decide whether to grant review of the case (the decision whether to hear the appeal is discretionary). It takes the votes of four of the nine justices to accept the case. The response of EMA and the Entertainment Software Association, our co-plaintiff in the case, to the state's request is due in late July. We will urge the court to reject the invitation to review the case.
The Court will likely announce in the early fall whether it will take the case.
|
