Such groups view the programs as economically beneficial farmer self-help activities requiring minimal federal funding. Generic ads, on the other hand, have no connection to the name of a specific producer. Legal Challenges

Some producers have vigorously challenged mandatory check-off programs. Their key contention has been that the check-off is a "tax" to fund advertising and other activities they would not pay for voluntarily. Three cases have reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court said that the mushroom check-off is a stand-alone program that is not part of a broader regulatory scheme, as was the peach/nectarine marketing order, and "... for all practical purposes, the advertising itself, far from being ancillary, is the principal object of the regulatory scheme...."
The Supreme Court issued its third decision on May 23, 2005. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled in favor of the government, upholding the program. Are Check-offs Effective? What Types of Activities Are Appropriate?
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 affirmed the constitutionality of the so-called beef check-off program, one of the 18 generic promotion programs for agricultural products that are now active nationally. Supporters view check-offs as economically beneficial self-help activities that need minimal government involvement or taxpayer funding. Producers, handlers, and/or importers are required to pay an assessment, usually deducted from revenue at time of saleâthus the name check-off . However, some farmers contend they are being "taxed" for advertising and related activities they would not underwrite voluntarily. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the beef check-off is considered significant for the future of the other programs, although the Court left open the possibility of additional challenges.