policy briefs Battle Over Connecticut's Anti-Steering Law Wages On U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Janet Bond Arterton denied Safelite's motion for a preliminary injunction in mid December, writing in her ruling, "because the court concludes that PA 13-67(c)(2) is rationally related to the state's goal of protecting consumer choice and preventing steering, plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim." Safelite had claimed the law is unconstitutional because it restricts the company's right to free speech. Company attorneys claim Safelite was the only entity covered by the law. Connecticut's attorneys, meanwhile, claim the law is intended "to protect consumer choice." Safelite immediately appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court, asking for an emergency injunction to halt enforcement the law. "We are disappointed that Judge Arterton denied our motion for preliminary injunction, which would have delayed the effective date of Public Act 13-67: An Act Concerning Auto Glass Repair," writes Safelite's senior corporate counsel Brian DiMasi in a statement. Meanwhile, the Connecticut Assistant Attorney General office's issued a statement: "We are pleased with the District Court's thorough decision. The state has a long-standing interest in protecting consumer choice in automobile glass repairs covered by insurance. We will continue to vigorously defend the statute." Several automotive glass repair and replacement company owners are calling the judge's decision a "victory." "Do they [Safelite] have any idea as to the blow back the public will give them nationally over this action [to sue]? Do they have any idea as to how we will explain this to our clients? And they have spent how much for this action? . . . My question is where would Safelite be without deep pockets?" says Kerry Soat, owner of Fas-Break in Chandler, Ariz. "Boy, I bet the tongues are wagging over this news. Connecticut is legislating Safelite's TPA [third-party administrator] and provider model right into the trash heap of rigged commerce," says Jay Sampson of Total Glass Solutions in Broomfield, Colo. "Perhaps this Connecticut bill will become the new draft legislation that is marched up to state houses all over the country soon." In response to Safelite's appeal to the Second Circuit Court, Judge Susan Carney issued a denial and ordered that the company's motions for an emergency injunction and for an expedited appeal be referred to a three-judge motions' panel. With no emergency injunction in place, the anti-steering law went into effect on January 1. Safelite officials declined to comment on the initial decision by the Second Circuit Court. The company's attorneys moved quickly to file a memorandum in the court further arguing their favor, claiming, "the state relies on imagined procedural errors" in its argument against a preliminary injunction. "Having nothing of substance to offer in response to Safelite's motion for an injunction pending appeal, the state relies on imagined procedural errors, faulting Safelite for seeking emergency relief directly from this [Circuit] Court over the holidays," Safelite's attorneys claim in their latest filing. "But contrary to the state's assertion, Federal Rule of the Appellate Procedure 8 permits Safelite to seek relief directly from this court, particularly where Safelite had only days before the statute became effective and impaired Safelite's constitutional rights. "Nor can the state escape this court's review by mischaracterizing the District Court's statutory interpretation as 'factual finding.' Rhetoric aside, the state offers no legitimate reason to deny an injunction pending appeal. To the contrary, what is extraordinary here is the District Court's dramatic expansion of the state's ability to regulate speech, in contravention of the First Amendment and this [Circuit] Court's precedents," Safelite's attorneys claim. Safelite's attorneys go on to claim, "Left unchecked, the District Court's rationale would not only allow states to co-opt the messages of commercial entities and force them to advertise for their competitors, but would permit a state to force businesses to carry any messages the state demands, so long as that message can conceivably be characterized as 'factual.'" Safelite asked the three-judge motions' panel to "grant an injunction pending appeal." No further Circuit Court decisions had been issued at press time.