Monday, April 27, 2009

 

Unlicensed Designers Free in Another State



In a landmark state court decision in the state of Texas, last week the fifth circuit court decided that interior designers and decorators DO NOT need a license to refer to themselves as interior designers or decorators when advertising to the public.

We discussed this issue last year during a flap over the issue in Connecticut, see that post here: CT Interior Designers Wage Title Fight

The crux of the court's argument is that the language used by designers to explain what they do is not inherently misleading, as their trade name is exactly the service that they provide.

Below are the details of the decision (excerpt from the Volokh Conspiracy):

The State advances a circular argument that the speech inherently tends to mislead consumers. It runs: Texas created a licensing regime; therefore, unlicensed interior designers who refer to themselves as interior designers will confuse consumers who will expect them to be licensed. The descriptive terms “interior designer” and “interior design” are not, however, inherently misleading. They merely describe a person’s trade or business. The terms can be employed deceptively, for example if a person does not actually practice interior design, but the speech is neither actually nor inherently misleading. This argument also proves too much, as it would authorize legislatures to license speech and reduce its constitutional protection by means of the licensing alone.

The State next relies on two pieces of evidence to prove that unlicensed interior designers who use the title are engaged in misleading speech. The district court correctly rejected both proffers. The State offers a survey that asked irrelevant questions concerning the respondents’ general preferences for “licensed” professionals. The survey included five substantive questions and seventeen demographic questions. The only question even arguably relevant to whether the job title “interior designer” is misleading was, “if there were two professionals offering the same service, one with a license, and one without a license, do you think that it is deceptive or misleading or both that the licensed and unlicensed person can use the exact same professional title?” Unfortunately, because no definition of the qualifications of the “licensed” professional was included, no probative value can be attached to the responses. We are also unable to attribute probative value to a legislative report, prepared three years before the statutes here at issue were passed, finding that some people are confused about what type of services interior designers provide and marshalling comments for and against licensing these occupations. Significantly, the legislative committee that authored the report made no suggestions for legislation of any kind.

Both the survey and the legislative report expose the fallacy in the State’s effort to characterize certain interior designers’ professional practices as misleading. There is no fixed definition of the covered occupations. Interior designers may confine their work to harmonizing color schemes and selecting furnishings for private residences; or they may design the physical layout of commercial spaces, including aesthetic, functional and safety attributes; or they may furnish services on a wide spectrum between these alternatives. Where no fixed definition of the services exists, there can hardly be a claim that the public is being misled about particular individuals’ truthfully expressed level of expertise or services. The State has offered no evidence that the public has actually been misled about interior design services.


Source: The Volokh Conspriracy April 09 Archives

Labels: ,


Monday, October 13, 2008

 

Interior Designers Wage a "Title" Fight in CT

Interior Design "Title" Fight


20 years ago, Susan Roberts of Lyme, Connecticut was told by the state Department of Consumer Protection that she could no longer use the term "Interior Designer" when marketing her services. According to an article on TheDay.com, she's decided not to play along anymore and has filed suit with the aid of the libertarian legal organization Institute for Justice for the right to use the Interior Designer title.

This fight is happening all over the nation, as, according to the article, the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) seeks to "expand the beachhead" of their titling into a full-blown licensing program. Getting licensed as a designer in CT is not prohibitively expensive, under $1000 for registration and exams, but for Roberts, starting out as a single mother 25 years ago made the process too difficult. After 2 decades of interior design work, she now feels that she should be able to advertise her services under the exact title of what she does for a living.

We at cityhammer.com are agnostic as to who's right and wrong here, but we find it interesting that now more than ever, in the age of Google, the importance of being able to use a title that also doubles as a search term, has sparked interior designer lawsuits across the country.




The interior-design titling law hasn't impeded her work, but it has interfered with her ability to find work, Roberts says, half-kiddingly adding that she could have been famous without the state's restrictions. She refused to call herself an interior decorator, which didn't describe what she could do, would limit her income and has become a pejorative in the design world.


”I have to call myself Susan Roberts, designer, or Susan Roberts, commercial, residential interiors,” she says. “I had to go through torture. It was intimidating. It makes you feel not as validated.”




We'll be watching with interest to see how the battle unfolds, and we hope that the ASID and the non-credentialed interior designers who work hard for their customers can find some common ground.


Click here for a list of Interior Design Pro's in Connecticut: CT Interior Designers

To read the rest of the article on The Day, click here: What's In a Name?







Labels: , ,


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]