512 U.S. 136 (1994)
Silvia Safille Ibanez has been a member of the Florida Bar since 1983 and practices law in Winter Haven, Florida.1 She holds an active CPA license issued by the Florida Board of Accountancy and is authorized by the private Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards to use the CFP designation.2
Ibanez placed the CPA and CFP designations next to her name in her yellow pages listing under the Attorneys heading, on her business cards, and on the left side of her Law Offices stationery.3 An anonymous copy of her yellow pages listing was mailed to the Board, which then commenced an investigation and issued a complaint against her.4
The Board charged Ibanez with practicing public accounting in an unlicensed firm in violation of Florida Statute section 473.3101, using an unapproved specialty designation in violation of Board Rule 24.001(1)(g), and using the CPA designation in a manner that implied compliance with the Public Accountancy Act in violation of Rule 24.001(1).5 The Board later dropped the unlicensed-firm charge before the close of proceedings.6
A hearing officer found in Ibanez's favor on all remaining counts and recommended dismissal of the charges for lack of proof.7 The Board rejected the recommendation, declared Ibanez guilty of false deceptive and misleading advertising, and reprimanded her.8 The District Court of Appeal First District affirmed the Board's final order per curiam without opinion, after which the Supreme Court granted certiorari.9
Whether the Florida Board of Accountancy's reprimand of Silvia Ibanez for using the CPA designation in her commercial communications violated the First Amendment?10
Only false, deceptive, or misleading commercial speech may be banned outright.11 Commercial speech that is not false, deceptive, or misleading can be restricted only if the State shows that the restriction directly and materially advances a substantial state interest in a manner no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.12
Yes. Ibanez holds an active CPA license issued by the Board that has never been revoked.13 The Board dropped its charge that she practiced public accounting in an unlicensed firm. No evidence in the record shows that Ibanez engaged in any professional activity out of compliance with statutory or regulatory standards.14
No consumer was misled by her placement of the CPA designation next to her name in the yellow pages listing under Attorneys, on business cards, and on Law Offices stationery.15 The Board's bare assertion that her use of the designation was misleading because she did not concede the Board's jurisdiction over her law practice lacks the specific evidence of noncompliance required to justify a restriction on protected commercial speech.16
The Board's reprimand of Ibanez for using the CPA designation violated the First Amendment.17
Whether the Florida Board of Accountancy's reprimand of Silvia Ibanez for using the CFP designation in her commercial communications violated the First Amendment?18
A state may not prohibit potentially misleading commercial speech without demonstrating that the recited harms are real and that the restriction will alleviate them to a material degree.19 Rote invocation of the phrase potentially misleading does not satisfy the state's burden, and unduly burdensome disclaimer requirements may offend the First Amendment.20
Yes. The Board presented no evidence that any member of the public was actually misled by Ibanez' use of the CFP designation.21 The designation is a protected federal trademark conferred by a private organization after completion of core educational requirements, a certification examination, a work-experience requirement, agreement to a code of ethics, and continuing education.22 The Board's conclusion that the term certified inherently misleads the public into believing state approval exists rests on speculation rather than record evidence.23
The detailed disclaimer mandated by Board Rule 24.001(1)(j) would effectively prohibit notation of the designation on business cards, letterhead, or yellow pages listings.24
The Board's reprimand of Ibanez for using the CFP designation violated the First Amendment.25
Related opinions on this issue
Justice O'Connor would uphold the Board's sanction for Ibanez' use of the CFP designation.26 She concludes that the designation is inherently misleading because Ibanez' advertisements did not identify the private certifying organization.27 Her use of the CFP designation in close connection with the identification of herself as a CPA would lead a reasonable consumer to conclude that the two certifications were conferred by the same entity—the State of Florida.
Even if not inherently misleading, Justice O'Connor finds the use at least potentially misleading.28 Therefore, it is subject to the Board's disclaimer requirement under Rule 24.001(1)(j), which Ibanez did not satisfy.29 She therefore dissents from the Court's holding on the CFP issue while joining the majority on the CPA issue.30