Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
18TOBACCOOUTLETBUSINESSNOVEMBERDECEMBER2009FDALegislativeUpdateManufacturersandretailersjoinforcestosuetheFDAonadvertisingban.ByThomasA.BriantNATOExecutiveDirectorDuringthefrstweekoSeptemberalawsuitwasfledintheederaldistrictcourtinBowlingGreenKy.byR.J.ReynoldsTobaccoCo.ConwoodCo.LLCCommonwealthBrandsInc.LorillardInc.NationalTobaccoCo.andaNATOretailerDiscountTobaccoCityLotteryInc.againsttheU.S.DepartmentoHealthandHumanServicesandtheU.S.FoodandDrugAdministrationFDAseekingtoprotecttheconstitutionalrightotobaccomanuacturersandretailerstoadvertiselegaltobaccoproducts.ContestedRegulationsEarlierthisyearCongresspassedandthepresidentsignedintolawnewregulationsgrantingtheFDAsweepingpowerstoregulatethetobaccoindustry.Thosepowersincluderestrictionsoncigaretteandsmokelesstobaccoproductadvertisingandnewcigarettepackagewarninglabelrequirements.SpecifcallythelawsuitseekstohavedeclaredasunconstitutionalthenewFDAregulationsthatwouldprohibitcolorletteringtrademarksbrandlogosandx9imagesonallretailpoint-o-saleadvertisinganddirectmailadvertisingrestricttobaccoproductadvertisinginretailstorestox9theuseoblacklettersonawhitebackgroundtolistthebrandnameproductsizepriceetc.alsoknownasx1ctombstonex1dadvertisingprohibitanycolorimagesonpackagesocigarettesandx9smokelesstobaccoproductswhilealsorequiringthatthetop50percentotherontandbackocigarettepackagescontainshockinggraphicimagesandgovernment-mandatedwarninginormationprohibittobaccomanuacturersrommakinganyx9statementsabouttobaccoproductsinscientifcpublicpolicyorpoliticaldebates.FReespeeChWhilethelawsuitdoesnotchallengetheauthoritythatCongressgrantedtotheFDAtoregulatetobaccoproductsthecomplaintdoesocusondeclaringasunconstitutionalthoseregulationsthatprohibitorrestricttheadvertisingotobaccoproductsandthatrequiremajorportionsocigarettepackagingtocontainwarninglabels.FreespeechisprotectedundertheFirstAmendmentotheU.S.ConstitutionandtheU.S.SupremeCourthasdefnedx1cspeechx1dtoincludecommercialspeechwhichisbetterknownasadvertising.InacttheveryfrstsentenceinthecomplaintquotestheU.S.SupremeCourtx19s2001decisioninthecaseoLorillardTobaccoCo.v.Reillywhichstatesx1cSolongasthesaleanduseotobaccoislawuloradultsthetobaccoindustryhasaprotectedinterestincommunicatinginormationaboutitsproductsandadultcustomershaveaninterestinreceivingthatinormation.x1dDuringthepasttwoyearsNATOcommunicateditsoppositiontoFDAregulationtomembersoCongress.AsapartoNATOx19slettersandotherlobbyingeortswespecifcallyinormedcongressionalmembersthatabanontobaccoproductadvertisingwasunconstitutional.WhileCongresschosetoignoretheseconcernsU.S.SupremeCourtdecisionsregardingtherighttoadvertiselegaltobaccoproductsareontheindustryx19sside.Inthe2001LorillardcasetheU.S.SupremeCourtruledthataMassachusettslawthatnotonlybannedoutdoortobaccoadvertisingincludingadvertisementsinretailstoresacingoutwardbutalsorestrictedpoint-o-saleadvertisingwasunconstitutional.InrespondingtothelawsuittheFDAmayclaimthattheseadvertisingandpackagingrestrictionsareneededtoreduceyouthtobaccouse.HowevermorethanadecadeagointheU.S.SupremeCourtcaseoRenov.ACLUthecourtmajorityheldthatx1cregardlessothestrengthothegovernmentx19sinterestinprotectingchildrenthelevelodiscoursereachingamailboxsimplycannotbelimitedtothatwhichwouldbesuitableorasandbox.x1dInotherwordstheSupremeCourtheldthatadvertisingmeantoradultsandwhichadultshavearighttoseecannotberestrictedsimplybecausechildrenmightalsoseetheadvertising.TRADETALKByThomasBrianT