The 1st Amendment is not an absolute bar on any restrictions on speech whatsoever. It is a bar on state action to limit (or compel) protected speech on the basis of content. I could load you up with legalese here, but the rather simple explanation of the matter is that, if it's not restricting speech for political opinions (in a very expansive sense of political), then it probably will pass constitutional muster.
If I have the underlying context right here, this is effectively regulation prohibiting people from lying in the course of their normal operations, which smells a lot like a typical fraud statute, and government restrictions on fraud-like things have almost always been upheld as constitutional. (The main exception I'm aware of is US v Alvarez, but even there, SCOTUS said it was only a problem to ban lying for lying's sake; banning lying with the purpose of getting a benefit is acceptable).
If I have the underlying context right here, this is effectively regulation prohibiting people from lying in the course of their normal operations, which smells a lot like a typical fraud statute, and government restrictions on fraud-like things have almost always been upheld as constitutional. (The main exception I'm aware of is US v Alvarez, but even there, SCOTUS said it was only a problem to ban lying for lying's sake; banning lying with the purpose of getting a benefit is acceptable).