## Facts

- Silvia S. Ibanez practiced law in Florida and held an active Florida CPA license.
- She was also authorized by a private organization to use the “Certified Financial Planner” (CFP) designation.
- In a yellow pages listing under “Attorneys,” and on business cards and letterhead, she listed her name followed by “CPA” and “CFP.”
- Florida’s Board of Accountancy initiated disciplinary proceedings, alleging (among other charges) that Ibanez engaged in “false, deceptive, and misleading” advertising by using the CPA and CFP designations in her law-related materials.
- A hearing officer recommended dismissal for lack of proof, but the Board rejected that recommendation, issued a reprimand, and assessed costs.
- The record contained no specific evidence that any consumer was actually misled or harmed by Ibanez’s truthful use of the designations.
- A Florida intermediate appellate court affirmed the Board’s action.

## Issues

1. Whether disciplining a professional for truthfully using earned credentials (“CPA” and “CFP”) in advertising violates the First Amendment protection for commercial speech.
2. Whether the State demonstrated that the use of those designations was actually misleading or inherently misleading.
3. If not misleading, whether the State satisfied the Central Hudson requirements by showing a substantial interest directly and materially advanced by a restriction no more extensive than necessary.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed (7–2).
- Ibanez’s use of “CPA” and “CFP” in her professional materials was commercial speech, but it was truthful and not shown to be misleading.
- The Board’s asserted harms rested on speculation rather than evidence of real deception or material harm.
- The State failed to justify its reprimand under the First Amendment standards governing restrictions on nonmisleading commercial speech.
- Justice O’Connor concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing as to “CPA” but viewing “CFP” as potentially misleading absent clarification that it was privately conferred.

## Legal Principles

- The State may prohibit commercial speech only if it is false, deceptive, or misleading.
- For truthful, nonmisleading commercial speech, the State must satisfy Central Hudson: the regulation must directly and materially advance a substantial governmental interest and be no more extensive than necessary.
- The government bears an evidentiary burden to show the harms are real and that the restriction will alleviate them to a material degree; speculation is insufficient.
- When speech is at most potentially misleading, disclosure requirements are generally preferred over suppression or discipline.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Florida could not constitutionally reprimand Ibanez for truthfully advertising her CPA and CFP credentials because the State failed to show actual or inherent misleadingness and did not meet the required showing for restricting nonmisleading commercial speech.


Ibanez v. Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Pro. Regul., Bd. of Acct., 512 U.S. 136 (1994)