I’m stuck on a Management question and need an explanation.
Case: Marc Kasky versus Nike
Background: The case of Kasky v Nike is about Marc Kasky who filed a lawsuit against Nike in California state court in 1998 suing the company for unfair and deceptive practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. Nike claimed that the statements were noncommercial speech on matters of public concern and thus were constitutionally protected. Nike responded to the charges in numerous ways, such as by issuing press releases. Kasky alleged that Nike’s public statements regarding the working conditions in its overseas suppliers’ factories contained false information and material omissions of fact concerning the working conditions under which its products are manufactured. In May 2002, Kasky appealed against the lower court’s decision to the California Supreme Court. They found 4-3 in favor of Kasky that Nike violated sections of the Business and Professions Code. Then on June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on Nike’s appeal. In September 2003, The case was settled out of court.
Need to answer the following questions:
1.How does the decision of the side taken by each stakeholder affect business-‐government-‐society?
2.Which side do you think is right, and why?
3.What would you have done differently?
Minimum 4 pages, and APA Reference Format.