Search Results Results 1-10 of 57
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.
Nicolás Parra Castro v. Superintendency of Industry and Commerce (Second Instance) [Colombia] [November 14, 2019]
The plaintiff, a member of “Educar Consumidores” NGO, filed a lawsuit to order the Superintendency of Industry and Commerce (SIC) to inspect, monitor, and control the advertising and promotion of tobacco products and their derivatives. Specifically, the plaintiff requested that the judges order SIC to demand that Coltabaco and Philip Morris Colombia withdraw all advertising of IQOS devices. In the first instance, the Court denied the claim because the norms invoked by the plaintiff did not contain an imperative and enforceable mandate against the defendant. On appeal, the Court confirmed the previous decision since it also understood that the cited norms -although they established the general prohibition on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products and their derivatives - did not create a clear and concrete obligation that corresponded specifically to SIC.
Nicolás Parra Castro v. Superintendency of Industry and Commerce (First Instance) [Colombia] [September 25, 2019]
The plaintiff, a member of “Educar Consumidores” NGO, filed a lawsuit to order the Superintendency of Industry and Commerce (SIC) to inspect, monitor, and control the advertising and promotion of tobacco products and their derivatives. Specifically, the plaintiff requested that the judges order SIC to demand that Coltabaco and Philip Morris Colombia withdraw all advertising of IQOS devices. In this case, the first instance, the Court denied the claim because the norms invoked by the plaintiff did not contain an imperative and enforceable mandate against the defendant.
Flavour of America S.A. v. Paraguay [Paraguay] [July 12, 2018]
The petitioners filed an appeal for legal protection, challenging the constitutionality of two administrative decrees that implemented Article 8 and Article 11 of the FCTC. The Court held that the Executive Branch’s decrees established duties, obligations, and restrictions not allowed under the National Constitution, the law ratifying the FCTC, or the Sanitary Code. According to the Court, the FCTC contained only “programmatic” clauses and not “self-enforcing” provisions. As a result, in the case of a framework convention, the law that approves it must necessarily be regulated by another law enacted by Congress. That Law can then be regulated by a decree issued by the Executive Branch. The Court stated that there is no express legislative delegation that enables the Executive Branch to regulate Articles 8 and 11 of the FCTC by decree, especially when there are already prior and subsequent laws entirely in force.
Esperanza Cerón Villaquirán et al v. Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio (SIC) [Colombia] [November 17, 2017]
Tobacco control advocates challenged the Superintendency of Industry and Commerce (Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio – SIC) resolutions that regulated point of sale tobacco product displays. Tobacco control advocates alleged that these resolutions violated the complete ban on advertising, promotion and sponsorship established through Law No. 1335. The Colombian State Council held that these resolutions violated Article 13 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and its guidelines that state that product display should be considered a form of advertisement. Consequently, the State Council mandated the SIC to repeal the resolutions, which was done through Resolution No. 1/2018.
British American Tobacco Panama v. Executive Decree No. 611 [Panama] [May 28, 2014]
Decree No. 611 establishes that Panama's ban on the advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products includes a ban on tobacco product display at the point of sale. BAT Panama filed an unconstitutionality claim requesting an order from the court declaring the Decree void. BAT Panama argued that the Decree violated the rights to freedom of expression and private property, among other rights. The Supreme Court upheld the Decree, noting, among other things, that even freedom of expression could be restricted if needed to protect public health.
Ceylon Tobacco v. Minister of Health [Sri Lanka] [May 12, 2014]
The Sri Lanka Ministry of Health adopted regulations requiring tobacco products to contain graphic pictorial health warnings on 80% of the pack. The Ceylon Tobacco Company sued, claiming that the regulations exceed the authority of the Ministry and also violate the company’s intellectual property rights. In this decision the Court of Appeal found that the national tobacco law does provide the Ministry with authority to require pictorial health warnings, not just textual warnings. However, the court reduced the size of the warnings to between 50% to 60% of the cigarette pack in order to give tobacco companies more space in which to display their trademark. The court said that it was balancing the need to protect the health of citizens against the rights of a business to use its trademarks to help identify and sell its products. The court ordered the Ministry to issue new regulations allocating between 50% to 60% of the package for pictorial health warnings.
National Association of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. et al v. City of Providence, Rhode Island, et al [United States] [September 30, 2013]
Tobacco companies sued the City of Providence, Rhode Island challenging two different local ordinances: (1) restricting the sale of flavored tobacco products (other than cigarettes) except in a smoking bar; and (2) prohibiting retailers from accepting or redeeming coupons and certain multipack discounts (e.g., buy two, get one free). The Appeals Court upheld the lower court’s decision and found that both ordinances are legal. The “Flavor Ordinance” is not preempted by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The “Price Ordinance” does not violate the First Amendment and is not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. Additionally, neither ordinance is preempted by Rhode Island state law.
ASA Adjudication on Gallaher Ltd. (A12-208266) [United Kingdom] [March 13, 2013]
This ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) sanctioned Japan Tobacco International (JTI) for misleading advertising for their campaign against plain packaging in the United Kingdom. The Cancer Research UK, a public health organization, made a complaint about the advertisements of JTI. The ads claimed that plain packaging was “categorically rejected” and there was “no evidence” of its effectiveness. The ASA found that both of these claims were misleading and unrepresentative of the true facts. The ASA ordered JTI and its subsidiary, Gallaher Ltd, to not run the ads again.
Ceylon Tobacco v. Minister of Health [Sri Lanka] [February 22, 2013]
The Sri Lanka Ministry of Health passed a regulation requiring tobacco products to contain graphic pictorial health warnings on 80% of the pack. The Ceylon Tobacco Company challenged the regulation as ultra vires the authority of the ministry and sought an interim order to stop the implementation of the regulation until their substantive challenge was concluded. Here the Court of Appeal denied the tobacco company’s request to delay implementation of the regulation. The court found the regulation was sufficiently clear for implementation. The court said the timeline of the regulation provided sufficient time for implementation and the balance of convenience supported the Minister.