Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 3 THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 11. In that case, the Court held that laws requiring the disclosure of factual information in commercial advertising may satisfy the First Amendment if the disclosures are “reasonably related” to the Government’s interest in preventing consumer deception. 471 U. S., at 651. Because the trade associations did not contest Zauderer’s applicability before the Eleventh Circuit and both lower courts applied its framework, I agree with the Court’s decision to rely upon Zauderer at this stage. However, I think we should reconsider Zauderer and its progeny. “I am skeptical of the premise on which Zauderer rests—that, in the commercialspeech context, the First Amendment interests implicated by disclosure requirements are substantially weaker than those at stake when speech is actually suppressed.” Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States, 559 U. S. 229, 255 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the common-carrier doctrine should continue to guide the lower courts’ examination of the trade associations’ claims on remand. See post, at 18, and n. 17, 30 (opinion of ALITO, J.). “[O]ur legal system and its British predecessor have long subjected certain businesses, known as common carriers, to special regulations, including a general requirement to serve all comers.” Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ., 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (THOMAS, J., concurring in grant of certiorari) (slip op., at 3). Moreover, “there is clear historical precedent for regulating transportation and communications networks in a similar manner as traditional common carriers” given their many similarities. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5). Though they reached different conclusions, both the Fifth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit appropriately strove to apply the common-carrier doctrine in assessing the constitutionality of H. B. 20 and S. B. 7072 respectively. See 49 F. 4th 439, 469–480 (CA5 2022); NetChoice v. Attorney Gen., Fla., 34 F. 4th 1196, 1219–1222 (CA11 2022).