LANGUAGE

Argument: Legal Product

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
Or Or

... but don't show pages that have:

Search Criteria:

from:to:
 

Search Results Results 1-10 of 74

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.

[Unnamed Actor] v. México [Mexico] [October 02, 2019]

An agent from the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS) confiscated electronic cigarettes from the plaintiff under Article 16(VI) of the General Law on Tobacco Control, which states: "It is prohibited to trade, sell, distribute, display, promote or produce any object that is not a tobacco product which contains some of the brand elements or any type of design or auditory sign that identifies it with tobacco products." The plaintiff filed an Amparo action challenging the interpretation of Article 16. The Ministers of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) decided unanimously that it is unconstitutional to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes while, on the other hand, the sale of tobacco products is allowed in Mexico. The Court considered that even though the law seeks to protect the right to health, this cannot be done at the cost of an excessive affectation of other goods and rights. The Ministers agreed that prohibiting the sale of electronic cigarettes while the sale of tobacco products is allowed violates the right to equality, and that the measure is not the least restrictive to guarantee other constitutionally protected rights. As a result, they revoked the order from COFEPRIS and ordered the return of the seized goods to the plaintiff.

This ruling applies only to the plaintiff who was a party to this case. However, if the same court issues five judgments with identical holdings, the decision would be binding nationally. This is the third such decision by the Second Chamber.

Jaunait Consulting v. México [Mexico] [July 02, 2019]

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) determined that electronic cigarettes cannot be banned under the interpretation of Article 16(VI) of the General Law on Tobacco Control, which states: "It is prohibited to trade, sell, distribute, display, promote or produce any object that is not a tobacco product which contains some of the brand elements or any type of design or auditory sign that identifies it with tobacco products." The Court found that this interpretation is unconstitutional since (i) the sale of tobacco products is allowed, and (ii) banning non-tobacco products without a proper justification violates the principles of equality, legality, proportionality, and non-discrimination.

This ruling applies only to the plaintiff who was a party to this case, Juanait Consulting. However, if the same court issues five judgments with identical holdings, the decision would be binding nationally. This is the such first decision by the First Chamber.

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.

Philippine Tobacco Institute v. City of Balanga et al. [Philippines] [May 21, 2019]

The Philippine Tobacco Institute ("PTI"), whose members include JTI and PMI, challenged a City of Balanga ordinance creating a tobacco-free generation, which prohibits the sale of tobacco products and e-cigarettes to any person born on or after January 1, 2000. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of PTI in July 2018, concluding that "any ordinance prohibiting PTI from selling to any person regardless of age is an unreasonable and oppressive interference of business." The court reasoned that the ordinance now covers individuals who have reached the age of majority and is not limited to minors. In addition, the court held that the ordinance violates substantive due process of those exercising parental authority since the ordinance attempted to extend criminal liability to parents.

The City’s appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, as was a motion for reconsideration.

Vapeadores de México v. México [Mexico] [November 15, 2017]

Vapeadores de México asked the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS) to whether the import, distribution, and sale of e-cigarettes and e-liquids required the issuance of an authorization or license and/or health permit and what requirements must be met. COFEPRIS responded that the General Law on Tobacco Control does not contemplate that and that the importation and sale of those products are banned under the scope of Article 16(VI), which states: "It is prohibited to trade, sell, distribute, display, promote or produce any object that is not a tobacco product, that contains some of the brand elements or any type of design or auditory sign that identifies it with tobacco products." Unhappy with the response, Vapeadores de México filed an Amparo action alleging violations of the constitutional principles of equality, legality, and non-discrimination.

The Ministers of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) decided in unanimity that it is unconstitutional to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes while, on the other hand, the sale of tobacco products is allowed in Mexico. The Court upheld previous courts' decisions, considering that even though the law seeks to protect the right to health, this cannot be done at the cost of an excessive affectation of other goods and rights. The Ministers agreed that prohibiting the sale of these products in order to protect public health and the environment violates the right to equality and the proportionality principle since, at the same time, the sale of tobacco products is allowed.

This ruling applies only to the plaintiff who was a party to this case, Vapeadores de México. However, if the same court issues five judgments with identical holdings, the decision would be binding nationally. This is the second such decision by the Second Chamber.

M/s Joy Buddy Fun Products Ltd. vs. Union of India [India] [February 13, 2015]

M/s Joy Buddy Fun Products Ltd. challenged the government's seizure of its e-cigarette consignment.  The court directed the release of the consignment, finding no law prohibiting e-cigarette imports and observing that other port custom authorities permit such imports.

ASA Adjudication on Must Have Ltd. [United Kingdom] [September 24, 2014]

A TV ad for e-cigarettes featured a woman running her hand over her thigh while discussing the feeling of touching, holding, feeling and tasting something great. The ad also contained the phrase, "quality assured since 2009."  Viewers challenged whether the ad was offensive because it sexualised e-cigarette use, whether it was suitable for broadcast before 9pm, and whether "quality assured" could be substantiated. The ASA found that the ad was advertised responsibly and that the quality statements were substantiated. Because of the level of sexuality in the ad, the ASA ruled that the ad should have been aired after 9pm to minimize the risk of children seeing it.

Hawkins v. Van Heerden [Australia] [April 10, 2014]

The operator of a website selling electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) was convicted of violating the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA) by selling a product that is “designed to resemble a tobacco product.” The Supreme Court overturned an earlier ruling by a lower court, which had acquitted the seller.

The Supreme Court found that the e-cigarettes, which contained only “e-juice” and no nicotine, resembled a tobacco product because they are used for inhaling vapour, which is exhaled in a manner similar to smoke from a cigarette.

See further the sentencing judgment: Hawkins v. Van Heerden [No 2] [2014] WASC 226 (24 June 2014).

ASA Adjudication on Must Have Ltd t/a VIP Electronic Cigarette [United Kingdom] [February 26, 2014]

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received more than 1,000 complaints about two commercials for e-cigarettes featuring a man and a woman, respectively, making reference to oral sex. The ASA found that the ads were sexually provocative and should have been aired only after 11 pm rather than allowed to air after 9 pm. In the future, the ASA ordered the company not to broadcast the ads before 11 pm and to ensure that the ads were not likely to cause serious or widespread offence. The ASA did not uphold other complaints about the ads, finding that the ads were not likely to be viewed as degrading or exploiting women, did not encourage smoking or the harmful use of nicotine products, did not promote the product to young viewers, and made clear that the product contained nicotine.