On July 7, 2016 the US District Court for Central California upheld the right of the cities of Los Angeles, Santa Clarita, Rancho Cucamonga and Loma Linda to regulate mobile billboards. Here are the details of the case.
- In 2012 the California Legislature enacted legislation permitting municipalities to regulate mobile billboard advertising.
- Los Angeles, Santa Clarita, Rancho Cucamonga and Loma Linda passed ordinances banning mobile billboards. The ordinances make is unlawful to drive or park a mobile billboard on any public street within city limits.
- Two mobile billboard operators sued claiming the ordinance violated free speech.
- The Court upheld the ordinances as content-neutral, reasonable, time-place-and-manner, restrictions of speech. The court found that a restriction on mobile “advertising” signs did not violate Reed versus Gilbert. Insider has attached the reasoning here so you can see how courts are interpreting Reed V Gilbert.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Reed does not alter our conclusion. Unlike Reed, the mobile billboard ordinances do not single out a specific subject matter for differential treatment, nor is any kind of mobile billboard exempted from regulation based on its content. There has been no suggestion that the ordinances apply differently to Lone Star Security’s political endorsements than to its commercial promotional campaigns, for example. Rather, an officer seeking to enforce the non-motorized billboard ordinances must decide only whether an offending vehicle constitutes a prohibited “advertising display” because its primary purpose is to display messages, as opposed to transporting passengers or carrying cargo.
Insider’s take: Courts in California are coming to the conclusion that Reed V Gilbert does not overturn sign codes which restricts advertising signs so long as the codes do not have a long list of subject categories of content for which there are differing sets of regulations.
