In Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Commn of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), the Supreme Court announced a four-part test for assessing the constitutionality of a restriction on commercial speech: (1) if the communication is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity, then it merits First Amendment scrutiny as a threshold matter; in order for the restriction to withstand such scrutiny, (2) the State must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech; (3) the restriction must directly advance the state interest involved; and (4) it must not be more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Id. at 564-66. In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission , 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980), the Supreme Court set out a four part test for determining the constitutionality of a government restriction on commercial speech. The court must determine whether: 1) the regulated speech is misleading or concerns unlawful activity; 2) the government has asserted a "substantial" interest in restricting the speech; 3) the government has demonstrated that the regulation "directly advances" the asserted interest; and 4) the restriction is not more extensive than necessary to achieve the asserted governmental interest. See Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566. In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 563, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 2350, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980), the Court adopted this four-part analysis for assessing the validity of a restriction on commercial speech: "In commercial speech cases, then, a four-part analysis has developed. At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest." 100 S.Ct. at 2351. In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980), the Supreme Court set out a four-part test for assessing the validity of restrictions on commercial speech. In accordance with this test, the Court must first determine whether the speech at issue concerns lawful activity and is not misleading; speech failing this initial part of the test is not entitled to any first amendment protection. Second, the Court must examine the government's asserted interests in regulating the speech, and we may uphold the regulation only if it is based on a substantial government interest. Third, the Court must ascertain whether the regulation directly advances the asserted governmental interest. Finally, the Court must be convinced that the regulation is no more extensive than necessary to carry out the government's objective. Id. at 566, 100 S.Ct. at 2351. In Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Commn, 447 U.S. 557 , 566 (1980) , the Supreme Court laid out the framework for determining the constitutionality of restrictions on commercial speech. 447 U.S. at 566. First, commercial speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Id. If this is the case, the Court ask whether (1) the asserted governmental interest is substantial, (2) the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and (3) the regulation is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Id. First, the Court ask whether the regulated activity is lawful and not misleading. Id. at 563-64.