the cases uniformly refuse to impose such a duty. Were we tempted to create this duty, the gentle tug of the First Amendment and the values embodied therein would remind us of the social costs.”); Barden v. Harpercollins Publishers, Inc., 863 F.Supp. 41, 45 (D.Mass.1994). Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiffs complaint alleges that Dearborn violated § 17200 based on the contents of The Market Gurus, it is dismissed with prejudice. Can Plaintiffs nevertheless state a § 17200 claim based on Dearborn’s advertising of the book? Keimer held that, for purposes of a § 17200 claim, a book jacket and a videotape cover constituted commercial speech. Keimer, 75 Cal.App.4th at 1230, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 781. But see Lacoff v. Buena Vista Publishing, Inc., 183 Misc.2d 600, 705 N.Y.S.2d 183 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Unlike Keimer, Cher and cases that follow it
holding that first amendment does not permit a court to hold a dentist liable for statements published in book or made during news program even when statements were contrary to opinion of medical establishment holding that once a comic book character was drawn named and given speech it was sufficiently distinctive to be copyrightable holding that the plaintiffs right to political speech is fully in accord with the publics interest in free speech and association holding that exact same speech at issue in keimer the book cover flyleaf and introduction to the book which stated a fact made by the authors in the book itself was not commercial speech because it states a fact made by the authors in the text it is not about the book as a product recognizing the need to balance the states interest in fulfilling its responsibilities to the public the extent to which the speech in question involves a matter of public concern and the manner time place and context of the speech