clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e
  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search search for:
clear space
white space
Session Laws, 1989
Volume 771, Page 402   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

Ch. 3

LAWS OF MARYLAND

(I)  BUY A PRODUCT OR SERVICE FROM THE PERSON
GIVING THE THING OF VALUE; OR

(II)  REFRAIN FROM BUYING A PRODUCT OR SERVICE
OF A COMPETITOR OF THE PERSON GIVING THE THING OF VALUE.

REVISOR'S NOTE: This section is new language derived
without substantive change from former Art. 56, §
526(a), as that subsection related to a violation of §
521(8).

Defined terms: "Person" § 1-101
"Provide hearing aid services" § 8-101

8-515. ADVERTISING PROFESSIONAL METHODS OR SUPERIORITY.

WHILE PROVIDING OR OFFERING TO PROVIDE HEARING AID SERVICES,
A PERSON MAY NOT ADVERTISE PROFESSIONAL METHODS OR PROFESSIONAL
SUPERIORITY.

REVISOR'S NOTE: This section is new language derived
without substantive change from former Art. 56, §
526(a), as that subsection related to a violation of §
521(5).

The Business Occupations Article Review Committee
notes, for consideration by the General Assembly, that
this section may be an unconstitutional restriction on
commercial speech, as protected by the 1st Amendment
to the United States Constitution. Bates v. State Bar
of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 363, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2698
(1977), reh'g denied, 434 U.S. 881, 98 S.Ct. 242
(1977); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens
Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 761-62, 96 S.Ct. 1817,
1825-26 (1976). The United States Supreme Court has
developed a 4 part test to determine whether a
restriction on commercial speech is constitutional.
The first step is to determine whether the speech is
truthful, is not misleading, and concerns a lawful
activity. If so, that speech can only be restricted
if the restriction seeks to implement a substantial
government interest, directly advances that interest,
and reaches no farther than necessary to accomplish
its objective. Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego,
453 U.S. 490, 507, 101 S.Ct. 2882, 2892 (1981);
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service
Commission, 447 U.S. 557, 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 2351
(1980).

A substantial government interest, such as protecting
the welfare of hearing impaired individuals, may
exist. However, it is unclear how a prohibition on
advertising professional methods or professional

- 402 -

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Session Laws, 1989
Volume 771, Page 402   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 17, 2024
Maryland State Archives