Petitioner objected to rules requiring health warnings and disclaimers to be displayed during films shown at movie theaters, on television, and on over-the-top (OTT) streaming services on the grounds that the required imagery is “distasteful, gross [and] graphic.” The court dismissed the petition, finding that the required warnings are in the public interest as it is the "duty of the State to take steps to ensure that health of the people is protected." The court also warned that the petition was a "gross abuse of the process of law" and warned petitioner against filing frivolous petitions in the future.
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Petitioner objected to rules requiring health warnings and disclaimers to be displayed during films shown at movie theaters, on television, and on over-the-top (OTT) streaming services on the grounds that the required imagery is “distasteful, gross [and] graphic.” The court dismissed the petition, finding that the required warnings are in the public interest as it is the "duty of the State to take steps to ensure that health of the people is protected." The court also warned that the petition was a "gross abuse of the process of law" and warned petitioner against filing frivolous petitions in the future.