Top

blog

Stories

 

Milking free speech: Royal Crest Dairy sues Fort Collins for door-to-door sales ban

Categories: News

royal_crest.jpg
Royal Crest Dairy is having a cow over Fort Collins' ban on door-to-door sales.
Is the door-to-door sale of milk a right protected under the First Amendment? It might sound utterly preposterous, but that's the argument a longtime Colorado milk delivery company is making in a federal lawsuit against the City of Fort Collins.

Royal Crest Dairy says a city ordinance that outlaws solicitation at people's doorsteps is infringing upon the company's constitutional rights and souring their profit margins. But the ordinance makes exceptions for religious, charitable or political groups as well as -- get this -- newspaper and magazine peddlers.

The suit, filed late last month in U.S. District Court in Denver (read it by clicking here), claims the city's prohibition of all other neighborhood salesmen is a violation of the milk baron's commercial free speech. Sure, that might be milking the First Amendment for all it's worth, but for the old-fashioned delivery business that depends in large part on house calls, the ban nicks at the milk jugular.

The city sent a letter to Royal Crest in August 2008, informing the company that they were in violation of the ordinance, which could result in criminal misdemeanor charges.

Jan Rigg, spokesperson for the 83-year-old Colorado dairy deliverers, declined comment Thursday until a federal judge decides whether or not the Fort Collins prohibition is lawful. "We believe the case has merit," she says.

The Denver-based operation delivers milk and other dairy to homes across the Front Range, but Fort Collins is the only municipality that has threatened their milk money, Rigg said.

"As a home delivery service, Royal Crest relies on marketing and selling its
products door-to-door by interacting directly with customers and potential customers as well as leaving product and pricing information on doors and entryways," according to the complaint, which also states that "under the ordinance, Royal Crest is precluded from personally contacting
potential customers via door-to-door solicitations."

As a result, the company alleges, "Royal Crest's business is severely limited in Fort Collins, causing Royal Crest to lose sales and market share, as well as brand recognition and goodwill."

Royal Crest, which touts "All Natural Milk... A Difference You Can Taste," says the exclusion of newspaper and magazine salesmen from the ban, specifically, renders the ordinance unconstitutional. They also say that because the ordinance allows other private companies to solicit door-to-door, it violates the Fourteenth Amendment's edict of equal protection under the law.

Among other things, the company is seeking the federal court to deem the ordinance unconstitutional, as well as asking that Fort Collins pay damages to the company.

The combination of free speech and dairy products is unusual, to say the least. Now it's up to a federal court to decide if the complaint is legitimate, or just so much crying over spilled milk.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
1 comments
KenneyP
KenneyP

That is ridiculous!  Basically Royal Crest is saying that commercial advertising is them expressing an opinion.  In my opinion asking someone to purchase something is different that expressing an opinion.  Political, religious, commentaries are examples of freedom of speech.  Having someone begging for my money at my door is not, in my opinion.  


Having said that I also think that exceptions to the law are also ridiculous.  Having someone try to sell me newspapers or a magazine should also be banned.  The fact that it is not does smack of unconstitutionality and violates the 14th amendment.


It is for the same reason that New York City's ban on selling sugary drinks larger than 20 oz by one group of people while allowing others, such as 7-11, treats one group of people unequally under the law.  Fort Collins should simply ban all of those things.  The exception (as much as I dislike them) should be religious, political, and charitable groups.  But to have Conoco, Royal Crest Dairy, siding, roofing, lawn care, etc is an example of invasion of the property owner (or renters) right to enjoy their environment free from commercialism.   Most definitely the ban does not harm the brand of Royal Crest.  Quite the opposite, having the property occupant being disturbed harms the brand.  I think someone could sue Royal Crest Dairy for monetary damage from lost of peace and quite.


And I happen to be a Royal Crest customer!

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...