Jerry Beeman, Plaintiffs and Respondents v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC, E — Cantil-Sakauye, J…

Summary

The concurrence agrees that Civil Code section 2527 is constitutional but would hold that a statute requiring disclosure of factual information generally does not implicate California's constitutional free speech clause unless special circumstances threaten protected speech interests. It reasons that the clause protects the right to speak and publish sentiments, not a broad parallel right to withhold factual information, while recognizing exceptions for ideological compulsion and disclosures that chill protected speech. Justice Corrigan, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would treat the statute as implicating free speech and subject it to intermediate scrutiny, under which she would invalidate it.