Supreme Court to rule on Nike sweatshop claim
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The sports shoe giant Nike is at the centre of a landmark legal battle due to reach the United States Supreme Court this week that could alter the rules surrounding the kinds of commercial claims that companies can make for their products.
The case arises from the controversies that swirled around Nike a few years ago over its treatment of so-called sweatshop workers in developing countries. It is attracting the attention of the anti-globalisation movement.
The action, which could force Nike to surrender hundreds of millions in profits, has been brought by a California activist and former runner, Mark Kasky. He has accused Nike of lying in broadly benign statements it made about the sweatshops in 1996 and 1997.
Nike is challenging a decision by the California Supreme Court last year that paved the way for a full trial in the case.
The assertions made by Nike were not contained in advertising to the public, but in letters to newspapers, universities and sporting organisations and press releases. The company is arguing that these messages were not "commercial speech" as such, designed to boost sales, but statements of policy that should be protected by free-speech laws.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments