California Law
For many years, Target has enforced a no-solicitation policy at our stores nationwide to protect our guests from being subjected to persistent appeals when shopping at our stores. We believe we have this right since our stores are located on private property and are operated for the purpose of providing our guests with a comfortable shopping experience.
To challenge our solicitation policy, petitioners sometimes claim a right to gather signatures or engage in other expressive activity in front of a Target store based on Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, a 1979 decision of the California Supreme Court. While that case found that California law provides some protection for "free speech" activities at shopping centers that constitute a public forum, it does not give petitioners unlimited access to retail property. The shopping center involved in the Pruneyard case was a large, regional mall with extensive public amenities and common areas for walking and gathering. The court in that case determined that the mall was a public forum because it was the functional equivalent of a traditional town square. As a public forum, the mall was required to permit free speech activities in the common area, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions established by the mall owner. There have been recent cases in this area of the law that have clarified the scope of the Pruneyard decision. Based on these cases, it is clear that the Pruneyard decision does not require Target to permit petitioning in front of its stores.
Costco Companies, Inc. v. Gallant 96 Cal. App. 4th 740 (2002)
This case involved a challenge to restrictions imposed by Costco on petitioning at its stores. In its decision, the court held that a store such as a Costco is not a "miniature downtown" and so is not a public forum. Since the relevant characteristics of a Target store and a Costco store are essentially the same, the court's analysis would also apply to a Target store. Therefore, an individual Target store is not a public forum, so that the Pruneyard case does not give people the right to petition at a Target store.
Albertson's v. Young 107 Cal. App. 4th 106 (2003)
This case further clarified that individual retailers within larger commercial developments are also not within the reach of the Pruneyard decision. In this case, the solicitor argued that he had a right to engage in expressive activity at the Albertson's store because the store was part of a large shopping center. The court rejected this argument stating "o establish a right to solicit signatures at the entrance to a specific store, it must be shown that the particular location is impressed with the character of a traditional public forum for purposes of free speech." Id. at 122. As noted above, a Target store is not itself a public forum. Therefore, there is no right to solicit signatures at the entrance to a Target store, even if the store is located in a shopping center.
These cases make clear that Target stores are not themselves within the reach of the Pruneyard decision and that we do not need to allow people to use our property for expressive activity. Even in shopping malls that are within the reach of the Pruneyard decision, the right under Pruneyard is to use the common areas of the mall, not the area directly outside the Target store entrance. Individuals wishing to use the common areas within shopping malls should address the matter with the shopping mall owner or operator, not with Target.
We will continue to enforce our no-solicitation policy in all stores, including California, as we believe that these recent cases demonstrate our right to control access to our property and provide our guests with a comfortable, distraction-free shopping experience.
http://sites.target.com/site/en/corporate/page.jsp?contentId=PRD03-001336#california
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
