Philip Morris International (PMI) requested information from the University of Stirling about a project being undertaken by the University's Centre for Tobacco Control Research that deals with the effects of plain packaging on young adult smokers. The University, a public authority for the purposes of this case, refused to provide the requested information, arguing that the request was vexatious under their Freedom of Information Act. The Scottish Information Commissioner ruled in PMI's favor, concluding that, among other things, the request was not vexatious or a harassment to the University. The Commissioner emphasized that, although the request was likely to impose a significant burden on the University, it could have asked PMI to re-formulate the request and should have provided advice and assistance to PMI.
PMI v. University of Stirling, Decision 129/2011, Scottish Information Commissioner (2011).
The tobacco industry may attack an individual or organization in court. For example, a tobacco company may sue a tobacco control advocacy organization for defamation. Another example is a suit in which a tobacco company sought burdensome document production from a University under a freedom of information claim.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
A violation of the public’s right to information. The tobacco industry may claim that advertising, promotion or sponsorship, or packaging regulations limit the industry’s ability to communicate information to their customers and therefore infringes on the customer’s right to receive information, and to distinguish one product from another. Alternatively, public health advocates may claim that tobacco industry misinformation violates their right to accurate information or that government must be transparent in its dealings with the tobacco industry.
A discussion on whether the regulations impose an undue burden on the tobacco industry. This argument may involve the costs of implementing regulatory measures.
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 Commissioner does not accept the argument from the University that its attempts to clarify the request were reasonable. The request from PMI was wide ranging, but was clearly for all of the information the University held in relation to the project in question (as noted above, the request begins, “Please provide us with any information that you hold in relation to this project
…”). The Commissioner considers that the University was using this process to press PMI to modify and narrow the scope of its request, rather than to clarify it."
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.
Philip Morris International (PMI) requested information from the University of Stirling about a project being undertaken by the University's Centre for Tobacco Control Research that deals with the effects of plain packaging on young adult smokers. The University, a public authority for the purposes of this case, refused to provide the requested information, arguing that the request was vexatious under their Freedom of Information Act. The Scottish Information Commissioner ruled in PMI's favor, concluding that, among other things, the request was not vexatious or a harassment to the University. The Commissioner emphasized that, although the request was likely to impose a significant burden on the University, it could have asked PMI to re-formulate the request and should have provided advice and assistance to PMI.