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
ToTaladBanFirsTamendmenTissueoverlyresTricTiveByThomasBrianT20ByThomasBriantNATOExecutiveDirectorTRADETALKProtectingtheRighttoAdvertiseTOBOnFridayJune17alawsuitwasfledbyNATOR.J.ReynoldsTobaccoPhilipMorrisUSAandLorillardTobaccointheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtortheDistrictoMassachusettsseekingapreliminaryandpermanentinjunctionagainstanordinanceadoptedonMay102011bytheWorcesterMassachusettscitycouncilthatwouldvirtuallybanoutdoorandindoortobaccoadvertising.ApreliminaryinjunctionhearinginederalcourtonthematterisscheduledorSept.8.Theordinanceprohibitsanypersonromdisplayinganyadvertisingthatpromotesorencouragesthesaleoruseocigarettes...orothertobaccoproductsinanylocationwhereanysuchadvertisingcanbeviewedromanystreetorparkshownontheOfcialMapothecityorromanypropertycontainingapublicorprivateschoolorpropertycontaininganeducationalinstitution.Thatistheordinanceprohibits1alloutdoortobaccoadvertisingand2allindoortobaccoadvertisementsdisplayedinaretailstorethatcanbeviewedromthestreete.g.throughawindow.Itisimportanttonotethatthisordinancebansadvertisementsortobaccoproductsnotjustcigarettes.WhiletheordinancewasscheduledtotakeeectonFridayJune24thepartiestothelawsuitagreedtopostponeenorcementotheadvertisingbanportionotheordinanceuntiltwoweeksatertheederaldistrictcourtissuesitsrulingonamotionorapreliminaryinjunction.Thismeansthatretailerscancontinuetoadvertisetobaccoproductsuntilthecourthasanopportunitytohearthemotionorapreliminaryinjunctionandissuearuling.TheNATOlawsuitseeksanorderdeclaringthattheordinanceviolatestheFirstAmendmentotheUnitedStatesConstitutionwhichprotectsreespeechincludingcommercialspeechintheormoproductadvertising.In2001aU.S.SupremeCourtdecisionstruckdownaMassachusettsstatelawthatprohibitedoutdooradvertisingotobaccoproductswithin1000eetoaschoolorplayground.InthiscasetitledtheU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatsolongasthesaleanduseotobaccoislawuloradultsthetobaccoindustryhasaprotectedinterestincommunicatinginormationaboutitsproductsandadultcustomershaveaninterestinreceivingthatinormation.Eightyearsaterthe2001decisionCongresspassedtheFamilySmokingPreventionandTobaccoControlActwhichauthorizedtheU.S.FoodandDrugAdministrationtoregulatecigarettesroll-your-owntobaccoandsmokelesstobacco.UnderSection916otheFDAtobaccoregulatorylawlocalgovernmentsandstatesweregiventheauthoritytoadoptalawruleregulationorothermeasurerelatingtoorprohibitingthesaledistributionpossessionexposuretoaccesstoadvertisingandpromotionooruseotobaccoproductsbyindividualsoanyage.ThissectionotheFDAregulatorylawwasreliedoninpartbytheWorcestercitycounciltoadoptthetobaccoadvertisingordinance.TheWorcesterordinanceisthemostrestrictivelocaltobaccoadvertisingbaninthecountryandisevenmorerestrictivethantheMassachusettslawthatprohibitedtobaccoadvertisingwithin1000eetoaschoolparkorplayground.AsapartotheFDAtobaccoregulatorylawCongressrequiredtheFDAtoissueanewruletoregulateoutdoortobaccoadvertisingbutmandatedthatthefnalrulemustbeappropriateinlightogoverningFirstAmendmentcaselawincludingthedecisionin.InresponsetothisCongressionalmandatetheFDAissuedarequestinMarch2010seekingpubliccommentsonideastoregulateoutdoortobaccoadvertisingandacknowledgedthatanyadvertisingregulationmustbemorenarrowthanacompletebaninordertobeconstitutional.DespitetheU.S.SupremeCourtsdecisioninthecaseoverturningaMassachusettsstatewideadvertisingbanandtheFDAsacknowledgementthatthetypeoadvertisingbancontainedinthe1996agencyrulewouldnotpassconstitutionalrigortheWorcestercitycounciladoptedanordinancethatisevenbroaderinscopethantherestrictionsstruckdowninthecaseandthoseinthetheoriginalFDAadvertising-banrule.Thisoverreachingbanonoutdoorandin-storeadvertisingpassedbytheWorcestercitycouncilailstoadheretoconstitutionalFirstAmendmentreespeechstandards.Therighttoadvertiseisoparamountimportancetoretailersandtheprotectionothatrightbyrecoursetothejudicialsystemisnecessarywhenanadvertisingrestrictioninringesuponandimpairsthatright.WithNATOhavingretailmemberswithstoreslocatedinWorcesterMassachusettsandtheimportanceothisissuetotobaccoretailersnationwideNATOfledthelawsuittoreafrmtherighttoadvertiselegaltobaccoproducts.allLorillardTobaccoCo.v.ReillyLorillardLorillardTobaccoCo.v.ReillyLorillardLorillardLorillardTOBACCOOUTLETBUSINESSSEPTEMBEROCTOBER2011