When may the government burden lawful, non-misleading, non-fraudulent commercial speech?

Hypo 1: Bob's company sells "miracle" weight loss supplements, claiming users can lose 30 pounds in a month without diet or exercise. No scientific evidence supports this. To combat misleading health claims, the FTC requires all weight loss ads to carry disclaimers stating "Results not typical" and "Consult your doctor". Bob sues, arguing this violates his free speech. Result: The court would likely uphold the FTC rule. (1) Preventing misleading health claims is a substantial government interest, as such claims can lead consumers to make unsafe decisions. (2) Mandatory disclaimers directly advance this interest by providing context that the results are atypical and encouraging doctor oversight, reducing the risk consumers will be misled. (3) The rule is narrowly tailored, as it doesn't ban all weight loss ads, only requires limited disclaimers to counteract deception. Less restrictive means, like case-by-case enforcement, would be less effective at preventing widespread misleading claims. Thus, all three parts are met.

Hypo 2: To reduce underage drinking, Hypofornia bans alcohol billboards within 500 feet of schools, parks, and churches. Alcohol companies must also include "21+" in all other outdoor ads. Several beer and liquor companies sue. Result: This law would likely survive intermediate scrutiny. (1) Reducing underage drinking is a substantial government interest, given the health and safety risks of early alcohol use. (2) Limiting alcohol ad exposure near youth-oriented places directly advances that goal by reducing temptation and peer pressure. Requiring "21+" disclaimers also advances the interest by reinforcing the legal drinking age. (3) The law is narrowly tailored, as it doesn't ban all alcohol billboards, just those most likely to influence kids. The "21+" disclaimer is a minimal burden. Alternatives like targeted education campaigns would be less effective at limiting youth exposure to alcohol ads. All three prongs are satisfied.

Hypo 3: Citing professionalism, New Hypoland bans all doctor ads unless they only list the doctor's name, specialty, contact info, and hours. Any other info, like experience or patient testimonials, is prohibited. Result: This law would likely fail intermediate scrutiny. (1) Upholding medical professionalism is a substantial interest, but the law may not be a justifiable means to achieve it. (2) Restricting ads to basic factual info does advance the interest in a limited way by preventing puffery and sensationalism. However, (3) the law is not narrowly tailored at all. Banning virtually all substantive info is a sweeping restriction that severely limits doctors' ability to convey relevant, truthful info to patients. The state could advance professionalism through less restrictive means like banning deceptive claims, inappropriate images, or in-person solicitation. As is, the law fails the narrow tailoring prong and thus fails intermediate scrutiny overall.