Boycott Law: Is Noycott Illegal?

The right to boycott is protected by the First Amendment, but anti-boycott laws have been passed in many US states, targeting those who boycott Israel. These laws are designed to make it difficult for anti-Israel people and organisations to participate in boycotts. However, anti-boycott laws are controversial, with many critics arguing that they infringe upon the right to free speech.

Anti-boycott laws are a set of regulations that prohibit US companies from complying with aspects of other countries' boycotts that the US does not support. These laws are enforced by the Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC) and were implemented to prevent US businesses from participating in the Arab League's boycott of Israel.

While any company may refuse to do business with another firm, an agreement among competitors not to do business with targeted individuals or businesses may be an illegal boycott. Boycotts targeting price cutters are also more likely to raise antitrust concerns.

In 2019, the US Senate passed a bill that endorsed state anti-boycott legislation, but it has not yet become US law.

Boycotts are protected under the First Amendment

Boycotts are a form of political expression that have long been used as a tool for social change in the United States. From the Boston Tea Party to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, politically motivated consumer boycotts have played an essential role in American politics.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees certain protections for free speech, assembly, and petition. Courts have recognized that boycotts fall under these protections if their goal is to influence political and social change rather than to obtain economic gain. In other words, if a boycott is an attempt to influence political reform, it will likely be considered protected political expression under the First Amendment.

This interpretation is supported by the Supreme Court case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), in which the Court unanimously upheld the First Amendment right of African Americans in Mississippi to boycott local white-owned businesses in protest against segregation and racial inequality. The Court ruled that the boycott was a form of constitutionally protected expression akin to traditional means of communication, such as speaking and writing.

However, it is important to note that there are limitations to this protection. For example, in Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association (1990), the Supreme Court ruled against a group of court-appointed lawyers who refused to take on new cases to advocate for higher salaries. The Court found that the boycott violated anti-trust laws as it had an economic motive.

Additionally, there have been recent challenges to the right to boycott, with some states passing laws that penalize boycotts on certain issues or against specific countries, such as Israel. These anti-boycott laws have been the subject of legal debates and court cases, with federal courts generally finding them to be unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment.

In conclusion, while boycotts are generally protected under the First Amendment if they aim to influence political reform, there may be circumstances where certain boycotts are deemed purely economic activity and thus not protected. The specific details and goals of each boycott will determine whether it falls under the protections of the First Amendment.

Anti-boycott laws

The anti-boycott laws were initially implemented to prevent US businesses from participating directly or indirectly in the Arab League's boycott of Israel. While the Arab League boycott has lessened over the years, it still remains in effect in some countries. The anti-boycott restrictions can also apply to other boycotts around the world, such as India-Pakistan, Ethiopia-Eritrea, China-Taiwan, and Bahrain-Bangladesh.

Under US anti-boycott laws, prohibited activities include:

• Refusing to do business with boycotted countries or blacklisted companies.
• Discriminating or agreeing to discriminate against individuals or entities based on race, religion, sex, or national origin.
• Furnishing information about business relationships with boycotted countries or blacklisted companies.
• Furnishing information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of individuals.
• Paying or implementing letters of credit that include boycott-related actions prohibited by the anti-boycott regulations.

It is important to note that these restrictions may appear in various forms, such as contracts, shipping instructions, or even verbal discussions. US companies and individuals must be vigilant in identifying and reporting any requests or demands to participate in unapproved boycotts to the BIS and IRS.

The anti-boycott laws carry significant penalties for violations, including civil and criminal penalties. Civil violation penalties can reach up to $300,000 or twice the value of the transaction. Criminal penalties include fines of up to $1 million and imprisonment of up to 20 years. Companies may also face the loss of export privileges.

In recent years, there has been a growing trend of US states using anti-boycott laws to punish companies that refuse to do business with illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. These laws have been criticized by human rights organizations, arguing that they deter companies from cutting ties with settlements and contributing to human rights abuses.

Anti-boycott laws in the US

The United States has a policy of opposing restrictive trade practices or boycotts imposed by foreign countries against nations friendly with the US. To uphold this policy, the US adopted anti-boycott laws to prevent US firms from participating in foreign boycotts that the US does not sanction. These laws are enforced by the US Department of Commerce through the anti-boycott provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

Prohibited Activities

US persons are prohibited from taking certain actions with the intent to comply with, further, or support an unsolicited foreign boycott. These prohibited actions include:

• Refusing to do business with a boycotted or blacklisted entity
• Discriminating against, or agreeing to discriminate against, any US person on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin
• Furnishing information about business relationships with a boycotted country or a blacklisted entity

Reporting Requirements

US persons are required to notify the US Department of Commerce if they receive a request to comply with an unsanctioned foreign boycott. This notification must be submitted electronically or by mail using the appropriate form (BIS 621-P for single transactions or BIS 6051P for multiple transactions in the same quarter).

Penalties for Violations

Violations of the anti-boycott regulations can result in criminal and administrative penalties. Criminal penalties can include fines of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports involved (whichever is greater) and imprisonment of up to five years. Administrative penalties can include denial of export privileges, fines of up to $11,000 per violation, and exclusion from practice.

History of Anti-Boycott Laws

The US adopted anti-boycott authorities in the late 1970s to counteract the participation of US persons in foreign economic boycotts or restrictive trade practices. The 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act of 1969 targeted US persons' activities in furtherance of unsanctioned foreign boycotts, and these amendments were expanded upon in the 1979 Act. The most recent update to the anti-boycott laws was the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018, enacted as part of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.

First Amendment Considerations

While the US has laws prohibiting certain boycott-related activities, particularly in the context of international trade, it's important to note that the First Amendment protects the right to boycott as a form of free association and free expression. However, in recent years, there has been a legislative push to restrict boycotts of Israel, leading to legal challenges by organizations like the ACLU on the basis of violating the Constitution.

Anti-boycott laws internationally

Anti-boycott laws are a set of regulations that prohibit individuals and companies from complying with boycotts that are unsanctioned by the government. These laws are enforced by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) in the US, specifically by the Office of Anti-Boycott Compliance (OAC). The anti-boycott laws were implemented to prevent US businesses from participating directly or indirectly in the Arab League's boycott of Israel. While the Arab League's boycott has lessened over the years, it still remains in effect in some countries.

In the United States, anti-boycott laws are covered by the Export Administration Act (EAA), the Export Control Reform Act (ERCA), and the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018. These laws prohibit US businesses or individuals from participating in a foreign country's boycott of a country friendly to the US. The laws also prohibit the distribution of information about boycotted countries and firms. The EAA establishes anti-boycott regulations, which include civil and criminal penalties for individuals and companies that violate the law. Penalties for violating anti-boycott regulations can include fines of up to $1 million per violation and imprisonment of up to 20 years.

Many US states have also adopted anti-boycott laws or policies, with more than 250 million Americans living in states with such laws. As of April 2019, 27 states had adopted laws or policies that penalize businesses, organizations, or individuals that engage in or call for boycotts against Israel. 17 of those states explicitly target companies that refuse to do business in Israeli settlements. Some states have also penalized companies that cut ties with settlements, even if their laws do not explicitly extend to Israeli-controlled territories.

Anti-boycott initiatives have also gained traction in Europe, with French prosecutors bringing criminal charges against activists engaging in activities to promote boycotts of Israel, resulting in some convictions.

Boycotts and antitrust laws

Boycotts are a form of an orchestrated refusal to deal with a third party, which may be a competitor, supplier, or customer, with the aim of excluding or forcing them to behave in a particular way. While a company may independently refuse to do business with another firm, an agreement among competitors not to do business with targeted individuals or businesses may be an illegal boycott and a violation of antitrust laws.

In the United States, the examination of boycotts under antitrust laws has varied across different court cases. For example, in Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (1941), the US Supreme Court upheld that boycotts may be considered a per se violation of antitrust laws. On the other hand, in Northwest Wholesale Stationers v. Pacific Stationery and Printing Co. (1985), the Court stated that "not all concerted refusals to deal are predominantly anticompetitive," suggesting that the nature of the boycott and the position of the orchestrator group or individual in the market should be considered.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has challenged several instances of group boycotts, particularly in cases where competing healthcare providers refused to deal with insurers or purchasers except on jointly agreed-upon terms, which resulted in higher prices. Boycotts to prevent a firm from entering a market or to disadvantage an existing competitor are also considered illegal. Additionally, boycotts targeting "price cutters" and restricting competition without a valid business justification may violate antitrust laws.

The Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC) within the US Department of Commerce is responsible for administering and enforcing the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018, which discourages and prohibits US companies from supporting boycotts maintained by a foreign country against a country friendly to the United States.

Frequently asked questions