The court ruled on April 20, 2026, that the bar’s use of the title "barber shop" and its display of a barber pole constitute inherently misleading commercial speech under the First Amendment, meaning the business has no likelihood of success on its constitutional claim.
Osteria Segreto operates a cocktail bar in Omaha that rebranded from an Italian speakeasy to The Barber Shop Blackstone in early 2025. The business features a monochromatic barber pole logo, the tagline "Where the Buzz is Real," and an interior decorated with vintage barber chairs and historical pictures of barbers.
The Nebraska Board of Barber Examiners, represented by Attorney General Michael Hilgers and board members Tara J. Sterns, Joseph A. Scoville, and Courtney A. Daubendiek, ordered the bar to cease using the title "barber shop" and displaying a barber pole. The board cited Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-201(5) and (6), which prohibit unlicensed entities from using those terms or symbols.
Osteria Segreto sued, arguing that the enforcement violated its commercial speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The bar argued it was not holding itself out as a barber shop but as a cocktail bar, and that no customers had been actually deceived.
The district court applied the Central Hudson test for commercial speech and concluded that the bar’s branding was inherently misleading. The court noted that Nebraska law narrowly defines "barber shop" as a licensed establishment where licensed persons practice barbering.
The court held that the name The Barber Shop Blackstone and the use of a barber pole inevitably suggest to consumers that the business provides barbering services, not just alcoholic beverages. The court rejected arguments that context or the tagline dispelled this misleading inference, comparing the branding to hypothetical scenarios where a bar is called "The Hospital Blackstone" or "The Doctor’s Office Blackstone."
Because the speech was deemed inherently misleading, it receives no First Amendment protection under Central Hudson. The court therefore denied the preliminary injunction, allowing the state to proceed with enforcement actions against the bar.