Search Results Results 1-10 of 216
BAT Uganda Ltd. v. Attorney General and the Minister of Health [Uganda] [February 01, 2021]
British American Tobacco Uganda (BATU) challenged Uganda's Tobacco Control Regulations, 2019. BATU's court submissions raised a number of substantive and procedural claims, including the insufficient time to implement warnings, size of warnings, ban on some misleading descriptors, and flavoring ban. BATU sought and was granted a temporary injunction suspending implementation of Regulations 3, 4, 5, and 6. However, BAT subsequently withdrew its complaint and the injunction was lifted.
Baldassare v. British American Tobacco Argentina [Argentina] [December 28, 2020]
The plaintiff brought an action against British American Tobacco (BAT) Argentina, seeking damages for all the health problems allegedly resulting from his use of tobacco products. In particular, he sought compensation for a heart attack he suffered. He claimed that when he began smoking, the advertisements were misleading and did not warn him about the possible health problems caused by the substances in cigarettes. The judge determined that: (i) the case was not time-barred, (ii) tobacco consumption was probably one of the reasons for the heart attack, and (iii) the victim did not assume the risks of smoking because he was not sufficiently well informed, as required by the country's consumer protection law, and because he was not free to direct his actions due to the addiction. The lower court determined that BAT had to pay compensatory damages and also a fine as punitive damages.
Cubacigar Benelux NV v. State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport) [Netherlands] [June 30, 2020]
Cubacigar Benelux NV (Cubacigar) appealed a lower court decision upholding packaging restrictions contained in the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations. Specifically, Cubacigar had challenged restrictions limiting the use of metallic foils and embossing (“glitter and glamor” elements) on cigar boxes. The lower court held that these restrictions in the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations did not conflict with the EU Tobacco Products Directive. The court also determined that although the packaging requirements restricted the free movement of goods, the requirements were justified from a public health point of view because they are aimed at reducing the attractiveness of tobacco products. Further, the requirements of the principle of proportionality were also met.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision that the packaging requirements under the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations are in line with the EU Tobacco Products Directive. The Court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that the measures are justified on grounds of public health protection and are proportionate.
Australia - Tobacco Plain Packaging Final Ruling [Australia] [June 09, 2020]
The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued its final ruling affirming that Australia’s pioneering law requiring plain packaging for tobacco products and finding it entirely consistent with WTO agreements. In particular, the WTO appeal ruling confirmed the original finding that the evidence shows that tobacco plain packaging laws "are apt to, and do in fact, contribute to Australia's objective of reducing the use of, and exposure to, tobacco products."
The appeal ruling also confirmed that:
- Tobacco plain packaging is not more trade-restrictive than is necessary to meet its legitimate public health objective.
- Trademark owners do not have a positive right to use their trademarks under WTO TRIPS agreement, but only the right to prevent third parties from using them.
- Tobacco plain packaging is a justified restriction on the use of trademarks and does not violate trademark protections.
British American Tobacco Belgium v. Belgium [Belgium] [December 18, 2019]
Tobacco manufacturers requested both the annulment of and, in the interim, a suspension in the implementation of plain (or standardized) packaging. The court denied their request for a suspension, finding that there would be no irreversible damage to the manufacturers' reputations since they are still permitted to use their brand names on the new package format. The court also concluded that the transition period allotted by the legislation was sufficient in length. Finally, the manufacturers failed to prove that they would incur financial consequences large enough to justify suspension of implementation.
British American Tobacco Kenya, PLC v. Ministry of Health [Kenya] [November 26, 2019]
British American Tobacco Kenya filed a petition to the Kenya Supreme Court appealing a 2017 Court of Appeal decision upholding nearly all elements of Kenya’s Tobacco Control Regulations. The Supreme Court ruled that the tobacco company’s appeal had no merit, dismissed the petition in its entirety and affirmed the decision of the lower court.
Both lower courts upheld nearly all elements of the Regulations, which are designed to implement the Tobacco Control Act, including:
- a 2% annual contribution by the tobacco industry to help fund tobacco control education, research, and cessation;
- picture health warnings;
- ingredient disclosure;
- smoke-free environments in streets, walkways, verandas adjacent to public places and in private vehicles where children are present;
- disclosure of annual tobacco sales and other industry disclosures; and
- regulations limiting interaction between the tobacco industry and public health officials.
The Tel Aviv Chamber of Commerce v. State of Israel – Ministry of Health, Israeli Knesset, and Knesset Economics Committee [Israel] [November 25, 2019]
The importer and manufacturers' forum of vaporization products at the Tel Aviv Chamber of Commerce challenged amendments to the Restriction of Advertising and Marketing of Tobacco Products Law passed in December 2018. The Tel Aviv Chamber of Commerce specifically challenged the extension of tobacco-related restrictions to e-cigarettes, including an advertising ban, a display ban, and plain packaging, as well as a nicotine concentration limit of 20mg/ml for e-liquids. This case was dismissed.
La Republicana S.A. v. State - Executive Branch [Uruguay] [July 24, 2019]
Compañía Industrial de Tabacos Montepaz S.A. and La Republicana S.A. challenged Decree No. 120/2019, issued by the executive branch, that requires plain packaging of tobacco products. The Court rejected the challenge and found that the decree is not clearly illegitimate, and therefore, the plaintiffs did not meet the required standard. The Court further held that Congress was the appropriate institution to approve plain packaging and impose restrictions on the tobacco industry (done via Law No. 19.723), and therefore, the executive branch did not exceed its authority when it issued Decree No. 120/2019. Additionally, the Court found that even though the implementation timeline might be strict (one year), the industry had prior knowledge given that there was a previous decree and a pending bill in Congress.
BAT Uganda Ltd v. Attorney General & Center for Health, Human Rights and Development [Uganda] [May 28, 2019]
British American Tobacco Uganda (BATU), a subsidiary of British American Tobacco, filed a lawsuit in the Constitutional Court of Uganda in 2016 challenging the constitutionality of several key provisions in the Tobacco Control Act, 2015. The Court dismissed the Petition in its entirety and awarded costs to the government. The Court found that the Petition appeared to have been misconceived or brought in bad faith as part of a global strategy to fight tobacco control legislation. The challenged provisions upheld by the Court include provisions:
- requiring 65% or larger picture health warnings;
- banning smoking in all indoor public places and workplaces, on all means of public transport, and in specified outdoor public places;
- banning all tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, including product displays at points of sale;
- prohibiting the sale of tobacco products in specified places (health institutions, schools, prisons, and other places);
- prohibiting the import, manufacture, distribution, and sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems, and shisha, smokeless, and flavored tobacco;
- banning the sale of tobacco products through vending machines and through remote means of sale (e.g., mail, internet); and
- implementing WHO FCTC Article 5.3.
American Academy of Pediatrics, et al. v. FDA [United States] [March 05, 2019]
In 2016, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in conjunction with seven other health organizations, medical groups, and several individual pediatricians, filed a lawsuit to force the FDA to issue a final rule requiring graphic health warnings on cigarette packing and marketing, as mandated by the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. In September 2018, the District Court ruled in favor of the health groups finding that the FDA had both “unlawfully withheld” and “unreasonably delayed” agency action to require the graphic health warnings.
In March 2019, the District Court ordered that the FDA must issue a final rule by March 2020 for graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging and marketing. The ruling also requires the FDA to finish its study on the labels by April 15, 2019, and submit its proposed rule by August 15, 2019.
For the earlier decision, see: American Academy of Pediatrics, et al. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., No. 1:16-cv-11985 (D. Mass. 2018).