TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

British American Tobacco UK Ltd., et al. v. Secretary of State for Health

Five tobacco manufacturers and one vending machine supplier challenged the legality of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Regulations 2004, which bans tobacco product advertising, with limited exceptions. The applicants filed an application for judicial review, alleging that the exceptions to the regulations were disproportionately restrictive of advertising at the point of sale.  The Court held that the Minister of Health acted within the scope of his authority and dismissed the application for judicial review.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

British American Tobacco UK Ltd., et al. v. Secretary of State for Health, [2004] EWHC 2493, Administrative Court (2004).

  • United Kingdom
  • Nov 5, 2004
  • High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court

Parties

Plaintiff

  • British American Tobacco UK Ltd.
  • Cherwell Tobacco Ltd.
  • Gallaher Ltd.
  • Imperial Tobacco Ltd.
  • Philip Morris Ltd.
  • Societe Nationale d'Exploitation Industrielle des Tabacs et Allumettes (SEITA)

Defendant Secretary of State for Health

Legislation Cited

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Point of Sale) Regulations 2004

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health
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.

Tobacco Control Topics

Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship
Measures restricting any form of direct or indirect tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. (See FCTC Art. 13)

Substantive Issues

Right to Equal Protection
A violation of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. The industry may claim that regulations discriminate against tobacco companies or tobacco products. Smokers may claim that addiction is a health condition, so regulations discriminate against them based on their health condition. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) unfairly discriminate against SF businesses because the law should apply to all locations equally.
Right to Freedom of Expression
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
Reactionary Regulation
Regulatory measures consisting of political actions designed to punish the tobacco industry or tobacco users. The industry may argue such arbitrary and capricious regulations will fail to achieve the stated objective. They may also argue that the measures are too extreme, prohibitively expensive, and violate the principle of proportionality.
Ultra Vires Regulation
Subsequent regulations exceed the scope of the originating law.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2024 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by