Jerry Beeman, Plaintiffs and Respondents v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC, Defendants And…

Summary

The court held that Civil Code section 2527 implicates the California Constitution's protection of freedom of speech because it compels prescription drug claims processors to prepare and transmit factual information they otherwise might not provide. It nevertheless upheld the statute under rational basis review, concluding that the required disclosures are factual, nonideological commercial communications reasonably related to promoting informed decisionmaking about prescription drug reimbursement rates. Justice Corrigan concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing that the statute implicates free speech but would apply intermediate scrutiny and invalidate it; Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye concurred in the result but would hold that the statute does not implicate the free speech clause.