According to a report by Reuters on November 26, the US Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of tobacco companies, including Reynolds Tobacco (RJ Reynolds), regarding whether mandatory health warning labels on cigarette packets violate their freedom of speech. This decision means that the rulings of lower courts will remain in effect.
The background of this case is the policy introduced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2020 during Donald Trump's first term in office. The policy required health warnings on cigarette packs to cover 50% of the top of the packaging and 20% of advertising space at the top. Despite the regulation technically being in effect, the FDA has not strictly enforced it due to facing legal challenges.
The lawsuit, filed in 2020 by Reynolds Tobacco (a subsidiary of British American Tobacco), ITG Brands (a subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco), Liggett (a subsidiary of Vector Group), and other tobacco companies, questions the warning labels. The tobacco companies claim that these warnings infringe on their freedom of speech, as the warnings force them to support the U.S. government's anti-smoking messaging through images that they argue distort or exaggerate the effects of smoking on health.
The FDA stated that using images to enhance public awareness of the dangers of smoking is justified, as text alone is not enough to deter youth smoking.
United States District Judge J. Campbell Barker from Texas had ruled in 2022 that these graphic warnings violated the protection of the First Amendment. However, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled in March of this year that these controversial warnings were "factually and indisputably accurate" and met the legal standards related to the First Amendment, prompting tobacco companies to once again appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a related case, the Supreme Court of the United States is set to hear arguments on December 2 regarding the organization's refusal to sell flavored e-cigarette products.
Reynolds Tobacco declined to comment on the Supreme Court's decision to reject their appeal on Monday, the 25th.
Notice
1. This article is provided exclusively for professional research purposes related to industry, technology and policy. Any reference to brands or products is made solely for the purpose of objective description and does not constitute an endorsement, recommendation, or promotion of any brand or product.
2. The use of nicotine products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and heated tobacco products, is associated with significant health risks. Users are required to comply with all relevant laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.
3. This article is strictly restricted from being accessed or viewed by individuals under the legal age.
Copyright
This article is either an original work by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with the original source clearly indicated. The copyright and usage rights of this article belong to 2Firsts or the original source. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other unauthorized use of this article by any entity or individual is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally responsible. For copyright-related matters, please contact: info@2firsts.com
AI Assistance Disclaimer
This article may have utilized AI to enhance translation and editing efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, errors may occur. Readers are advised to refer to the sources provided for more accurate information.
This article should not be used as a basis for any investment decisions or advice, and 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any errors in the content.
