Commercial speech law and tobacco marketing: A comparative discussion of the United States and Canada

American Journal of Law and Medicine

Volumn 39, Issue 2-3, 2013, Pages 218-236

  Berman, Micah L ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVERTIZING; ARTICLE; CANADA; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; PACKAGING; TOBACCO INDUSTRY; UNITED STATES;

ADVERTISING AS TOPIC; CANADA; COMMERCE; HUMANS; PRODUCT LABELING; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; TOBACCO INDUSTRY; UNITED STATES;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84880073838     PISSN: 00988588     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009885881303900202     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, 823 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D. D. C. 2011)
2. aff'd, 696 F.3d 1205 (D. C. Cir. 2012).
3. See Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., The Chrysanthemum, the Sword, and the First Amendment: Disentangling Culture, Community, and Freedom of Expression, 1998 WIS. L. REV. 905, 905 (1998).
4. Guy E. Carmi, Dignity Versus Liberty: The Two Western Cultures of Free Speech, 26 B. U. INT'L L. J. 277, 369 (2008).
5. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 823 F. Supp. 2d at 48 n. 21 (emphasis added).
6. Cent. Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'r of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, 566 (1980).
7. See Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 66-76 (1983).
8. See Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, §§ 1-2;
9. see also R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S. C. R. 103 (Can.).
10. See S. AFR. CONST., 1996 §§ 16, 36
11. These provisions were recently applied to restrictions on tobacco marketing in British American Tobacco South Africa Ltd. v. Minister of Health 2012 (3) SA 593 (SCA) (S. Afr.).
12. Nearly all countries in Europe are parties to the 1953 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. See Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, COUNCIL OF EUR. (Mar. 3, 2013), http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp? NT=005&CM=&DF=&CL=ENG.
13. While not a constitution, the Convention is binding on all member states, and its provisions are enforced by the European Court of Human Rights. See Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4 1950, E. T. S. 5, 213 U. N. T. S. 221 (Nov. 4, 1950), available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm.
14. The Convention protects freedom of expression, including commercial expression, and its protections are "similar theoretically and conceptually" to those provided by the First Amendment. Bruce E. H. Johnson & Kyu Ho Youm, Commercial Speech and Free Expression: The United States and Europe Compared, 2 J. INT'L MEDIA & ENT. L. 159, 161 (2009).
15. U. S. CONST, amend. I.
16. For instance, even religious and political speech can be subjected to "time, place, and manner" limitations, so long as such restrictions are content-neutral. See, e.g., Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 469 (2009).
17. See Carlos E. Gonzalez, The Logic of Legal Conflict: The Perplexing Combination of Formalism and Anti-Formalism in Adjudication of Conflicting Legal Norms, 80 OR. L. REV. 447, 468 n. 34 (2001).
18. See Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U. S. 52, 54 (U. S. 1942)
19. See Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748 (1976).
20. ERIC BARENDT, FREEDOM OF SPEECH400-01 (2d. ed. 2005) (footnotes omitted). Justice Rehnquist dissented from the opinion, objecting to the creation of a new commercial speech doctrine that "elevates commercial intercourse between a seller hawking his wares and a buyer seeking to strike a bargain to the same plane as has been previously reserved for the free marketplace of ideas"
21. Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U. S. at 781 (1976) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
22. Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 447 U. S. 557, 564-66 (1980).
23. Samantha Rauer, Note, When the First Amendment and Public Health Collide: The Court's Increasingly Strict Constitutional Scrutiny of Health Regulations that Restrict Commercial Speech, 38 AM. J. L. & MED. 690, 693 (2012).
24. Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761, 771 (1993)
25. Liquormart v. Rhode Island, 517 U. S. 484, 511-14 (1996)
26. See Posadas de P. R. Assocs. v. Tourism Co. of P. R., 478 U. S. 328, 345-46 (1986)
27. Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr., 535 U. S. 357, 371 (2002)
28. Sorrell v. I. M. S. Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2664 (2011)
29. See Micah Berman, Kathleen Dachille & Julie Ralston Aoki, Sorrell and the Future of Commercial Speech Regulations, JURIST (Oct. 4, 2011), http://jurist.org/forum/2011/10/bermandachille-aoki-sorrell.php
30. See, e.g., Nat'l Ass'n of Tobacco Outlets v. City of Worcester, 851 F. Supp. 2d 311, 319 (D. Mass. 2012)
31. Lorillard v. Reilly, 533 U. S. 525, 561-66 (2001).
32. Id. at 556 (quoting Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass'n, Inc. v. United States, 527 U. S. 173, 188 (1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
33. See, e.g., Clay Calvert, Wendy Allen-Brunner & Christina M. Locke, Playing Politics or Protecting Children? Congressional Action & A First Amendment Analysis of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, 36 J. LEGIS. 201, 205 (2010)
34. (suggesting that the tobacco advertising restrictions in the Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776 (2009)
35. (to be codified at 15 U. S. C. § 1333 (labeling)
36. 15 U. S. C. § 4402 (smokeless tobacco warning)
37. 21 U. S. C. § 387a-l (final rule))
38. Michael Hoefges, Protecting Tobacco Advertising Under the Commercial Speech Doctrine: The Constitutional Impact of Lorillard Tobacco Co., 8 COMM. L. & POL'Y 267, 305 (2003)
39. Discount Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States, 674 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2012)
40. petition for cert, filed sub nom. Am. Snuff Co., LLC v. United States, No. 12-521 (Oct. 26, 2012).
41. ROGER A. SHINER, FREEDOM OF COMMERCIAL EXPRESSION 91 (2003)
42. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, c. 11, § 1 (U. K.).
43. R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S. C. R. 103 (Can.).
44. Ford v. Quebec (Att'y Gen.), [1988] 2 S. C. R. 712, 758 (Can.)
45. Compare Oakes, 1 S. C. R. at 138-39
46. with Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 447 U. S. 557, 564 (1980)
47. Oakes, 1 S. C. R. at 139.
48. Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 447 U. S. at 566.
49. Compare Oakes, 1 S. C. R. at 139
50. with Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 447 U. S. at 566
51. Ford v. Quebec (Att'y Gen.), [1988] 2 S. C. R. 712, 766-67 (Can.) (emphasis added).
52. See Karla K. Gower, Looking Northward: Canada's Approach to Commercial Expression, 10 COMM. L. & POL'Y 29, 36 (2005).
53. See Rocket v. Royal Coll. of Dental Surgeons of Ont., [1990] 2 S. C. R. 232, 246-47 (Can.).
54. RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Att'y Gen.), [1995] 3 S. C. R. 199 (Can.).
55. Tobacco Act, S. C. 1997, c. 13, § 22 (2).
56. See WORLD HEALTH ORG., CANADA'S FIRST (TWO-YEAR) IMPLEMENTATION REPORT: ANNEX 1: MISCELLANEOUS 42 (2007) (Can.), available at http://www.who.int/fctc/ reporting/Canada-annex miscellaneous.pdf.
57. See Tobacco Act § 22 (4).
58. Canada (Att'y Gen.) v. JTI-MacDonald Corp., [2007] 2 S. C. R. 610, para. 7 (Can.).
59. See Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U. S. 525 (2001).
60. JTI-MacDonald Corp., 2 S. C. R. at para. 61.
61. Canada and most other nations in the world are parties to the FCTC, but the United States is not. Parlies to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, WHO FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON TOBACCO CONTROL, http://www.who.int/fctc/ signatories-parties/en/index.html (last updated Dec. 7, 2012).
62. The FCTC states that parties should adopt warning labels that cover at least fifty percent of product packaging. WORLD HEALTH ORG., WHO FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON TOBACCO CONTROL 10 (2005).
63. Canada (Att'y Gen.) v. JTI-MacDonald Corp., [2007] 2 S. C. R. 610, para. 138 (Can.).
64. See Sarah Schmidt, Government Asks Court to Toss out Challenge over Cigarette Pack Warnings, OTTAWA CITIZEN, Nov. 21, 2012, http://www. ottawacitizen.com/health/story.html?id=7586355.
65. See JTI-MacDonald Corp., 2 S. C. R. at paras. 28, 121.
66. Irwin Toy, Ltd. v. Quebec (Att'y Gen.), [1989] 1 S. C. R. 927 (Can.)
67. RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Att'y Gen.), [1995] 3 S. C. R. 199, 281 (Can.)
68. Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748, 763-64 (1976)
69. See. e.g., 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island, 517 U. S. 484, 503 (1996)
70. (quoting Linmark Assocs. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85, 97 (1977))).
71. See, e.g., RJR-MacDonald Inc., 3 S. C. R. at 343.
72. Canada (Att'y Gen.) v. JTI-MacDonald Corp., [2007] 2 S. C. R. 610, paras. 96-116 (Can.).
73. Jon D. Hanson & Douglas A. Kysar, Taking Behavioralism Seriously: Some Evidence of Market Manipulation, 112 ARV. L. REV. 1420, 1445 (1999).
74. JTI-MacDonald Corp., 2 S. C. R. at paras. 96-116.
75. Lorillard v. Reilly, 533 U. S. 525, 529 (2001) (emphasis added).
76. To the extent Judge Leon discussed this issue, he asserted that warnings were "crafted to evoke a strong emotional response" and not to inform consumers. See R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, 845 F. Supp. 2d 266, 272 (D. D. C. 2012).
77. See R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, 696 F.3d 1205, 1222 (D. C. Cir. 2012)
78. (quoting Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2670 (2011))).
79. WV Ass'n of Club Owners & Fraternal Servs. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2009).
80. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 696 F.3d at 1219 n. 13
81. see also Nat'l Ass'n of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. City of Worcester, 851 F. Supp. 2d 311, 316 (D. Mass. 2012)
82. Tamara R. Piety, "A Necessary Cost of Freedom?" The Incoherence of Sorrell v. IMS, 64 ALA. L. REV. 1, 6 (2012).
83. See generally Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310 (2010).
84. This concern was also evident in the Virginia Pharmacy decision. Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748, 770 (1976).