Urowsky v. Board of Regents, 38 N.Y.2d 364 (1975)
A state regulation prohibiting the advertising of discount prescription prices by pharmacists does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments when the regulation is rationally related to preserving local pharmacies and preventing destructive competition, provided consumers can still access price information.
Summary
Urowsky, a pharmacist, challenged a New York regulation prohibiting the advertisement of discount prescription prices. The Board of Regents argued the regulation was necessary to prevent destructive competition among pharmacies and ensure their continued availability. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the regulation, finding it rationally related to the state’s interest in maintaining local pharmacies. The court distinguished this case from others involving protected speech, emphasizing that the regulation targeted only price competition advertising, not the dissemination of information about services, and that consumers still had access to pricing information.
Facts
Urowsky, a pharmacist and owner of a discount pharmacy, advertised discounts on prescription drugs. The State Board of Pharmacy charged him with unprofessional conduct for violating a regulation prohibiting such advertising. Urowsky sued, seeking a declaration that the regulation was invalid and an injunction against disciplinary action.
Procedural History
Urowsky initially filed suit in the Supreme Court, Albany County. Both Special Term and the Appellate Division upheld the constitutionality of the regulation. Urowsky then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a regulation prohibiting pharmacists from advertising discount prescription prices violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Holding
No, because the regulation is a valid exercise of the state’s power to regulate professions, is rationally related to the state’s interest in preserving local pharmacies and preventing destructive competition, and does not unduly restrict access to prescription drug price information.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the regulation fell within the Commissioner of Education and the Board of Regents’ authority under the Education Law to regulate professions. The court found the regulation was “rationally related to this State’s interest in the preservation of local pharmacies which serve a vital function in the convenient, rapid filling of prescriptions and in the prevention of destructive competition in the pharmaceutical profession.” It distinguished this case from cases involving protected speech, emphasizing that the regulation targeted only price competition, not the dissemination of information about services. The court also noted that another regulation mandated the posting of prescription prices in pharmacies, ensuring consumers had access to the information. The court stated, “the advertising prohibited by the Board of Regents relates exclusively to price competition, an area of particular concern to the State because of the probable deleterious effects of uncontrolled advertising upon the availability of prescription drugs from neighborhood pharmacies.” The court concluded that the regulation only affected the manner in which price information was conveyed, and that the state retains authority to regulate the manner of commercial advertising. The court rejected the argument that a “right to know” was violated as consumers could still obtain price information. The court further reasoned that even if such a right existed, the pharmacist did not have standing to assert the rights of consumers. The court distinguished Bigelow v. Virginia, stating that the regulation here does not prohibit the dissemination of knowledge concerning services intimately related to the exercise of a constitutional right. It stated, “Unlike Bigelow v Virginia (421 US 809, 822, supra), the regulation here does not prohibit the dissemination of knowledge concerning services intimately related to the exercise of a constitutional right (cf. Roe v Wade, 410 US 113).”