On July 2, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction in a challenge to a Berkeley, California ordinance requiring all cell-phone retailers to post notices suggesting that normal cell phone usage is dangerous. The Court’s decision was a setback for WLF, which filed a brief urging the Court to reverse the lower court’s decision. After deciding National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, the U.S. Supreme Court “GVR’d” a certiorari petition from the panel’s earlier decision. But rather than apply the strict scrutiny that NIFLA calls for, the Ninth Circuit panel doubled down on what it calls “the Zauderer exception to the general rule of Central Hudson.” Under that relaxed level of scrutiny, the panel concluded that CTIA had little chance of success on its First Amendment claim. As she had in the original panel opinion, Judge Friedland dissented. In her view, the challenged ordinance likely violates the First Amendment because it requires businesses to make false and misleading statements about their own products.