The dangerous idea of multi-million dollar corporations’ public relations doubletalk being protected under the First Amendment as freedom of speech gives businesses the freedom to unethically lie to consumers.

The case of Nike v. Kasky was settled Sept. 12, but if it had gone to trial, it held the possibility to produce a much-needed landmark ruling on the free speech rights of corporations — unfortunately, ignoring the impact such a decision could make undermind consumers’ ability to demand accurate reports about anything from businesses.

After much unfavorable publicity in 1996 — 1997, Nike began a damage control campaign to regain consumers’ trust and convince them it had cleaned up its subcontractors’ notorious “sweatshop” labor practices in Asia.

In this PR campaign, Nike claimed its workers were not subject to corporal punishment and/or sexual abuse, received free meals and health care, were paid on average double the minimum wage in Southeast Asia and were guaranteed a “living wage.” Nike also asserted that its products were made in accordance with all applicable governmental laws regarding wages, working hours and health and safety conditions.

However, California citizen Marc Kasky didn’t buy it — in 1998 he sued Nike under California’s consumer protection laws for allegedly misrepresenting its labor policies.

Rather than attempting to disprove Kasky’s charges, Nike’s lawyers challenged the legitimacy of the truth-in-advertising law itself. They argued that since Nike’s communications partly addressed political issues and not just company practices that their spiel was fully-protected political speech. But their outrageous, unbelievable assertion didn’t stop there — the lawyers also claimed that holding Nike to accuracy would unconstitutionally “chill” the company’s right to free speech.

If Nike had nothing to hide, there should have been no problem in sharing accurate information. What exactly were they afraid of? Had nothing actually changed at all? For a business, telling the entire truth about products to customers is important, from how they are made to what they contain, otherwise the customer’s trust will be unwarranted and most likely broken, thereby eroding credibility and ultimately creating their downfall.

Here’s an example: Let’s say you’re allergic to peanuts, and you are eating something that explicitly said it contained no peanuts. Later, you break out into a rash and start choking. You end up making a trip to the emergency room and the doctors tell you that what you ate did indeed contain peanuts. That business’ lie, which may not have seemed like a big deal to them, could have cost you your life. But most likely it left you with less trust in their word and liable for a hospital bill.

The same goes for corporations who attempt to gloss over their labor practices. I am quite opposed to forcing anyone to work 12—14-hour days for less than half of the American minimum wage per day in Mexican maquiladoras, Asian sweatshops or anywhere else just so I can buy cheap clothing, but it’s hard to know which companies use sweatshop labor without doing intensive research. Since it is relatively easy for businesses to avoid the issue, they simply don’t tell their customers exactly how their products are made. I can’t imagine how many things I have bought that I am not aware were made in sweatshops or in similar conditions — customers deserve the full truth so they can consciously avoid buying products from companies who exploit their workers.

Under Nike’s recent settlement, it will donate $1.5 million to the Fair Labor Association, a Washington group that monitors corporate labor practices abroad and helps educate workers. While this is a good thing, this amount of money is a drop in the bucket for Nike. You can’t put a price tag on the well-being and happiness of workers in foreign countries, but I’m sure it is worth more than one CEO’s salary.