Type of Tobacco Product: All tobacco products

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 13

Red PaPaz v. Rappi S.A.S [Colombia] [March 02, 2022]

On December 2, 2019, the Colombian Association of Fathers and Mothers – Red PaPaz, filed a claim before the Colombian Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC) against Rappi S.A.S (Rappi), a Colombian on-demand delivery online company, for the lack of mechanisms on Rappi's e-commerce website and mobile app to ensure that minors do not search and buy harmful products through them (such as alcohol and tobacco products). Specifically, the complaint alleged that minors could access, purchase and receive alcoholic beverages and tobacco products through Rappi's website without any significant limitations and without their age being verified at the time of purchase and delivery. This lack of protective measures violated the norms for the protection of minors established in Colombia's Law No. 1801-2016, Childhood and Adolescence Law. The complaint filed by Red PaPaz was investigated jointly, with many additional complaints filed by Colombian consumers against Rappi due to a series of infringements of the Colombian Consumer Protection Law. Upon completing the investigation, the SIC verified each of the infractions reported by Red PaPaz and several other consumers and determined to fine Rappi approximately $312,000.00 USD ($1,245,000,000.00 Colombian pesos). The decision has been challenged by Rappi.

Dep't of Health v. Philippine Tobacco Institute [Philippines] [July 13, 2021]

In 2011, the Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI) sued for declaratory relief, seeking to set aside the "Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Republic Act No. 9711" (otherwise known as the "Food and Drug Administration Act of 2009" or "IRR").  PTI sought to prohibit the Department of Health and the Food and Drug Administration of the Philippines from implementing the IRR "insofar as it relates to the regulation of Tobacco Products." The Court held the law constitutional and explained that the PTI "failed to establish an existing right that was violated" and that any "alleged damage or injury the subject IRR would cause is merely speculative and prospective in nature." 

On January 27, 2012, the Regional Trial Court ruled on the merits and granted PTI's petition, voiding the IRR insofar as it regulated tobacco products and the tobacco industry.  PTI argued that they should be principally regulated by the Inter-Agency Committee on Tobacco as provided for by the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 (IAC-Tobacco) and the court agreed that it was improper for the DOH or FDA to regulate tobacco products outside of IAC-Tobacco.

On March 29, 2012, the DOH and FDA filed a Petition for Review to the Supreme Court. On July 13, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversing and setting aside the 2012 decision which nullified certain provisions of the IRR insofar as it regulated tobacco products and the tobacco industry. The Supreme Court held that (1) Section 25 of the IRR does not exclude the regulation of the health aspects of tobacco products from the FDA's authority and (2) tobacco products are "health products" under the definition provided under Section 10(ff) of Republic Act No. 3720, as amended by Section 9 of the IRR. The Supreme Court stated that principal regulation by IAC-Tobacco would be contrary to law and the international obligations of the Philippines. The Supreme Court held the given IRR, the Constitution, and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, petitioners have technical authority of matters of public health and therefore, regulation of the health aspects of tobacco products fall under the FDA's authority.

Hegar v. Texas Small Tobacco Tobacco Coalition [United States] [March 24, 2017]

Texas law imposed a higher tax on the tobacco products of manufacturers who were not members of any settlement agreements ("Small Tobacco"), compared to the tax rate for manufacturers who had entered into settlement agreements. The settlement agreements required annual payments and restricted advertising and lobbying activities in exchange for releasing claims against manufacturers. Some manufacturers who were members of the settlement agreements did not make any annual payments to the State of Texas, although their products were taxed at a lower rate pursuant to the law. Small Tobacco argued that the difference in the tax between their products and products produced by those manufacturers who were not making annual payments to Texas violated the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. The Court rejected Small Tobacco's arguments and held that the law was constitutional.  
   

Zhonghua Cigarette Trademark Case - Appellate Decision [China] [January 01, 2012]

Information about this decision coming soon.

Philippine Tobacco Institute v. Dep't of Health [Philippines] [July 04, 2011]

The Philippine Tobacco Institute sued for declaratory relief, seeking to set aside the "Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Republic Act No. 9711" (otherwise known as the "Food and Drug Administration Act of 2009") seeking to prohibit the Department of Health and the Food and Drug Administration of the Philippines from implementing the IRR "insofar as it relates to the regulation of Tobacco Products."

Petitioners argued that the new law would cause "grave and irreparable injury" if the IRR went into effect, because it "invalidly expands and modifies the Food and Drug Administration Act as well as the Tobacco Regulation Act by placing the regulation and supervision of tobacco products under the FDA.  The Tobacco Institute further argued that it would "be exposed to an invalid and baseless regulation by government agencies, particularly the DOH and the FDA, which were deprived of any authority and jurisdiction over tobacco products and will consequently entail additional regulatory costs that are neither contemplated under the Food and Drug Administration Act nor the Tobacco Regulation Act."  They also argued that it would be exposed to hefty administrative penalties for possible violations of the IRR even though FDA has no jurisdiction over tobacco products. 

In rejecting Petitioners' application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, the Court found that the Tobacco Institute "failed to establish an existing right that was violated" and that any "alleged damage or injury the subject IRR would cause is merely speculative and prospective in nature."  Because there was no definite or immediate harm to rectify, the Court stated that the law would be presumed constitutional until "otherwise declared by judicial interpretation."

Zhonghua Cigarette Trademark Case - Trial Court Decision [China] [January 01, 2011]

Information about this decision coming soon.

PMFTC v. Dept. of Health [Philippines] [September 28, 2010]

PMFTC, a joint venture between Fortune Tobacco Company (FTC) and Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing Inc., filed a petition against the Philippines Department of Health asking the court to void Administrative Order 2010-0013.  The Department of Health ("DOH") argued the case should be dismissed because FTC and PMFTC were the same entity.  The DOH also argued that FTC and PFMTC represented the same interest of having Administrative Order 2010-0013 annulled in this case and in City of Makati v. Municipality (now City) of Taguig.  Using the two different courts violated the rules against forum shopping. In reaching the decision to grant DOH's motion, the court held that in this case and City of Makati, PMFTC and FTC represented the same interests. If the courts ruled differently on the Administrative Order, it would lead to much confusion.  However, the court refused to find FTC liable holding that while PMFTC and FTC had similar business interests, the two corporations were not the same corporate entity.

Fortune Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Health [Philippines] [July 01, 2010]

Fortune Tobacco Company sought a temporary restraining order against the Department of Health's Administrative Order (AO) 2010-0013, based on its contention that the order (which seeks to bring the Philippines' existing Tobacco Control Law into compliance with the FCTC) is null and void and without legal effect because it is in contravention to an already existing statute, namely R.A. No. 9211, known as the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003.  Claiming that AO 2010-0013 was issued as an "invalid exercise and usurpation of legislative power," petitioners specifically took issue with the provisions of the AO that required additional graphical warnings. 

Finding that preliminary injunctions are provisional remedies intended merely to preserve the status quo until the issue could be fully litigated on the merits before a trial court, the Court ruled the interest of justice would be "better served if the status quo is maintained."  The Court thus granted a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of the AO, and requiring a 5,000,000 peso bond to compensate the Department of Health in the event that the ultimate court decision was unfavorable.

Miroslav Grcev and Stamen Filipov to the Constitutional Court [North Macedonia] [September 16, 2009]

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Anti-Smoking Law, alleging that its smoking ban violated a number of protected rights including those of personal autonomy, equal protection, freedom of the market and entrepreneurship, and freedom of movement of smokers.  They also alleged that the law was unconstitutional due to arbitrary and inconsistent provisions and amendments. The Constitutional Court of Macedonia disagreed with these arguments, and found the law constitutional.  It noted that the Macedonian Constitution permits the restrictions of rights for the protection of health, and also cited the right to health as enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the WHO Constitution, and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. It also found that there is a a false equivalence between the right to smoke and the rights enshrined in the Constitution, noting that only restrictions imposed on smokers are with respect to the health of other citizens, and no equal protection issues are raised.  The Court affirmed the rights of the legislature to impose and amend restrictions to protect the public health.








 

The People of the Philippines v. Torrijos [Philippines] [April 16, 2004]

A smoker was accused of violating a Davos City ordinance prohibiting smoking in enclosed public spaces.  The smoker argued that the city ordinance was superseded by the subsequent federal Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003.  He argued the new act contained a definition of enclosed spaces that did not coincide with the circumstances of his arrest.  The court found that there was a conflict between the two laws with the municipal law being vague and that the restaurant where the smoker was caught did not meet the enclosed spaces definition of the new law. The smoker was thus found not to have violated the law.