Souza Cruz, a tobacco company, sought to prevent ACT Brazil, a public health NGO, from publishing a video criticizing the placement of tobacco products near candies, gum and other products popular with children. Souza Cruz argued that the video suggested the company was encouraging the criminal act of selling cigarettes to minors. The court ruled that the video did not target the company specifically but was instead generally advocating for greater restrictions on point of sale placement of tobacco products. The court found there was no injury to the company sufficient to justify a restriction on freedom of expression. This is a decision of the appellate court agreeing with the trial court to deny the injunction sought by the tobacco company.
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 restricting tobacco sales to or by minors, as well as other retail restrictions relating to point-of-sale, candy and toys resembling tobacco products, vending machines, or free distribution.
(See FCTC Art. 16)
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.
Souza Cruz, a tobacco company, sought to prevent ACT Brazil, a public health NGO, from publishing a video criticizing the placement of tobacco products near candies, gum and other products popular with children. Souza Cruz argued that the video suggested the company was encouraging the criminal act of selling cigarettes to minors. The court ruled that the video did not target the company specifically but was instead generally advocating for greater restrictions on point of sale placement of tobacco products. The court found there was no injury to the company sufficient to justify a restriction on freedom of expression. This is a decision of the appellate court agreeing with the trial court to deny the injunction sought by the tobacco company.