Imperial Tobacco challenged a tobacco control law that - among other things - prohibited the display of tobacco products at point of sale and the use of vending machines to sell tobacco products. Imperial Tobacco alleged that this law was "outside the competence of the legislature" and therefore challenged the law as being invalid. In support of this allegation, Imperial Tobacco further argued that this law constituted an undue interference with trade. The Court rejected these arguments and found that the law was valid in light of the state's compelling interest to protect the public health. Further, the Court found that these regulations did not interfere with trade as they did not prevent a sale from being made nor did they affect the terms of the sale between the business selling tobacco and the consumer. Imperial Tobacco's petition was therefore dismissed.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd, Re Judicial Review, 2010 SLT 1203, Court of Session (2010).
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.
A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a person’s choice. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
Subsequent regulations exceed the scope of the originating law.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The prohibition on modification of article VI contained in para 1 of schedule 4 to the Scotland Act is in any event restricted to modification of article VI so far as it relates to freedom of trade. The review of the historical context of the Acts of Union, the ordinary meaning of the phrase "freedom of trade" and what was said by the Secretary of State in the parliamentary debates on the Scotland Act, all taken together, lead me to conclude that the prohibition on modification of article VI of the Acts of Union contained in para 1 of schedule 4 to the Scotland Act is restricted to interference with the common market created by the Union. Understood in this way, the prohibitions and restrictions introduced by sections 1 and 9 of the 2010 Act do not interfere with the common market created by article VI of the Acts of Union. I did not find consideration of the Directive 2001/37/EC to be of assistance. In any event, the removal of barriers contemplated by it leaves open the possibility of member states introducing, under certain conditions, such requirements as they consider necessary in order to guarantee the protection of the health of individuals."
"That review of the background materials, the surrounding documents and the parliamentary debates points very strongly towards identifying the purpose of sections 1 and 9 of the 2010 Act as being to reduce smoking of tobacco among children and young persons and thereby improve public health in the long term. That purpose would not relate to a reserved matter in terms of section 29(2)(b) of the Scotland Act. ] A review of the earlier tobacco related secondary legislation discloses that some measures have been classified under a consumer protection heading and others under a public health heading. Plainly, measures relating to packaging, and warnings about tar and nicotine levels, are consumer protection measures and relate to the reserved matters in sections C8 and C9 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act. For this reason the Scottish Government has already recognised that it would be outwith its legislative competence to prohibit the sale of cigarettes in packs of ten. But nothing in a review of the earlier legislation diminishes the clear indication of purpose which emerges from the examination of the materials identified above."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Imperial Tobacco challenged a tobacco control law that - among other things - prohibited the display of tobacco products at point of sale and the use of vending machines to sell tobacco products. Imperial Tobacco alleged that this law was "outside the competence of the legislature" and therefore challenged the law as being invalid. In support of this allegation, Imperial Tobacco further argued that this law constituted an undue interference with trade. The Court rejected these arguments and found that the law was valid in light of the state's compelling interest to protect the public health. Further, the Court found that these regulations did not interfere with trade as they did not prevent a sale from being made nor did they affect the terms of the sale between the business selling tobacco and the consumer. Imperial Tobacco's petition was therefore dismissed.