Last year, I commented on the likely unconstitutionality of two California laws compelling forced speech:

The California legislature has of late adopted the tactic of driving behavior by compelling speech.  SB 253 (Wiener), for example, compels disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and SB 261 (Stern) requires disclosure of climate-related financial risks.  Both of these requirements clearly compel speech arguably in contravention of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006) ("Some of this Court's leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.").

I had previously noted that SB 253 was very similar to an earlier bill that did not make it into law.

Yesterday, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and several others filed suit in the Central District Court challenging these laws.  In its complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the "State's plan for compelling speech to combat climate change is unconstitutional - twice over."  The plaintiffs urge the court to apply "strict scrutiny" to both laws because they compel speech about a controversial subject - climate change.  If the court applies strict scrutiny, the bills would be presumptively unconstitutional and may be upheld only by proof that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.  That is an exceedingly high hill to climb.  

Because both bills quite obviously violate basic free speech rights, the question arises whether the authors knew or were grossly negligent in not knowing of the constitutional infirmities of the legislation.  In 2020, I wrote Senator Wiener, the author of SB 253, that SB 260, "abridges free speech rights guaranteed by the U.S. and California Constitutions".   At the time, I was distressed that the legislative analyses for SB 260 failed to mention the constitutional infirmities of the bill.  See  See Legislators Again Kept In Dark About Constitutional Infirmities Of Climate Corporate Accountability Act and Legislators Again Kept In Dark About Constitutional Infirmities of Climate Corporate Accountability Act.  

[View source.]