In the case of Nike, Inc. v. Marc Kasky in 2002, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a corporation's public statements about its business operations could be considered commercial speech and thus subject to laws against false advertising or if they were protected by the First Amendment as free speech. The lawsuit originated when California resident Marc Kasky accused sportswear giant Nike of making misleading claims about their labor practices overseas - specifically that workers were not being exploited and worked in safe conditions. Nike argued these statements were part of an ongoing public dialogue on international labor practices and should be protected under free speech rights rather than treated as commercial advertising which is regulated for truthfulness by state law. However, before reaching a decision on this issue, the court dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction without resolving whether such corporate communications are indeed covered by First Amendment protections.

The dissenting opinion in the case of NIKE, Inc. v. Marc Kasky argued that Nike's statements about its labor practices should be protected by the First Amendment as commercial speech. The justices believed that Nike was participating in a public debate about its business practices and therefore had a right to defend itself against criticism. They expressed concern that ruling against Nike could have chilling effects on corporate speech, discouraging companies from openly discussing issues related to their operations out of fear of litigation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that because Nike's statements were made in the context of selling products, they constituted false advertising rather than protected speech.