Contest cigarette advertisement restrictions
Published on September 7, 2009 8:51 AM
Major cigarette makers submitted a joint lawsuit on Sep 1ST , stating that provisions of new legislation concerning the advertising and promotional restrictions and larger health warnings infringe the freedom of speech rights.
The list of plaintiffs included R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, the second largest tobacco company, and Lorillard Tobacco Co, the third one as well as two minor cigarette makers and a tobacco store. The lawsuit was submitted to U.S. District Court based in Bowling Green, Kentucky
The leading US tobacco company Altria Group is not found in the plaintiffs list.
Altria, which has a more than 50 percent market share in the American tobacco market, was the only tobacco company to support the legislation, however, declared that would review carefully all provisions of the Act and didn’t exclude the possibility of filling their own lawsuit against the legislation.
The suit contests several restrictions in the Tobacco Control Act, almost unanimously approved by Congress two months ago.
Reynolds vice president Martin Holton declared that the lawsuit would not contest the Congress entitling the US Food and Drug Administration with the authority to oversee cigarettes and other tobacco products, or the majority of articles in the new legislation.
Instead, the lawsuit contests restrictions imposed by the FDA on advertisements that dramatically limit already few existing means of communication with adult smokers.
Among the restriction there is a requirement to make advertisements of tobacco products in black and white colors only and placing much large and pictorial health warnings on the packs, what was named illegal by the tobacco companies, seeking to challenge these restrictions.
The evident and rather ridiculous object of that provision is to oblige cigarette industry to stigmatize the products they sell via the packages they manufacture, according to the lawsuit materials.
The lawsuit will possibly be settled down in the U.S. Supreme Court and might result in changes in commercial freedom of speech not solely for tobacco makers but for the entire industry, admitted David Taylor Sr., Richmond lawyer who would represent the plaintiffs together with a group of other distinguished lawyers.
He said that the lawsuit should be monitored by every company, since it concerns the fundamental rights and freedoms of the industry.
However, other lawyers are not so optimistic about the ruling of the court. Nigel M. Hildreth, head of Law School at Winston-Salem University said that he has been 99 percent confident that plaintiffs would loose the lawsuit, taking into account numerous restrictions imposed on tobacco marketing, such as TV ads bans.
He added that commercial free speech has not been protected by the First Amendment as comprehensive as individual freedom of speech.
