Appendix A Case Appendix

CASE A$.1$

Anheuser$-$Busch, Learporitad va$.$ Schanoke,

Mayor of Baltmone City, $63$ F$.3$d $1305(1995)$

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Clrcult

Niemeyer, Circult Judge

In January $1994,$ Baltimore exercised the authority granted it by the state and enacted Ordinance $288$ prohibiting the outdoor advertising of alcoholic beverages in certain locations in Baltimore City. It also includes an exception permitting such advertising in certain commercially and industrially zoned areas of the City. By its terms, the ordinance was to become effective February $5,1994.$ Before enacting the ordinance, the Baltimore City Council conducted public hearings, receiving testimony and previously conducted studies detailing the adverse effects of alcohol consumption on minors and the correlation between underage drinking and the advertising of alcoholic beverages.

The City Council found that alcoholic beverages are the secand most heavily advertised products in America $($after cigarettes$),$ and that outdoor billboards are a "unique and distinguishable" medium of advertising that subjects the public to involuntary and unavoidable forms of solicitation, The City Council noted that children are exposed to the advertising of alcoholic beverages "simply by walking to school or playing in their neighborhood" and that children's "attitudes favorable to alcohol are significantly related to their exposure to alcohol advertisements." Attempting to lailor its ban, the City Council allowed advertising of alcoholic beverages in commercial and industrial areas, stating that it was "narrowly focus$[$ing$]$ its efforts on those advertisements which most directly affect minors where they live, attend school, attend church and engage in recreational activities,"

On January $14,1994,$ several weeks before the ordinance was to become effective, Anheuser$-$Busch, Inc., filed suit in fed$-$

We find that it wa: to have concluded that advertising of alcohe advances Baltimore's i perance of minors. The ing is a unique and dis involuntary and unavoic by walking to school exposed daily to this ac legislative finding that $t$ inite correlation betwc underage drinking.

We simply do not billion dollars a year $0$ market share at the exps of law, that prohibitions ages are reasonably rela of those beverages and $t$ omytof the industries th belief that advertising in

It is readily ackn advertising of alcoholic also reduce the opport information. And adults iation, are the object of appears that no less $n$ advance the government Baltimore could just as $e$ the welfare and temperar of existing laws prohibit beverages by$,$ minors, or cational programs on the might indeed prove ben