The US milk advertising programme, financed by the mandatory collection of some US$250m annually from farmers’ milk cheques, has survived a serious legal challenge by farmers who sought to be excused from paying for its “milk moustache” and “Got Milk?” advertising campaigns.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
A US district judge earlier this week rejected the arguments of Pennsylvania farmers Joseph and Brenda Cochran, who contended that the US Constitution protected them from being forced to pay 15 US cents per 100 lbs. of milk to finance messages with which they disagree.
However, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that the milk promotion law was “ancillary to” extensive government regulation of the milk industry, thus adopting the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the US when it rejected a similar challenge to a California fruit promotion fund.
The scheme was “economic regulation that does not infringe on the First Amendment rights of the Cochrans,” who contended that they did not benefit because they produced specialised, higher quality milk with grazing and “sustainable agriculture” practices.
The judge ruled that the national advertising campaign did not contravene the Cochrans’ right to separately advertise the benefits of their milk and held also that it was not “compelled speech” as they maintained, because the advertising was attributed to the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, not to the Cochrans or other individual producers.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalData“Our holding will allow the American public to continue to view advertisements containing white moustachioed celebrities and other pop culture icons depicting the salutary effects of milk,” the judge wrote.
The decision probably will be appealed and it is likely that the controversy eventually will be decided by the Supreme Court. Other courts are weighing similar legal challenges by farmers who object to laws that require them to pay for advertising of beef and pork products.
