Scroll To Top
Home \Litigation \  Advanced Search

Topic: Industry Interference

Litigation SearchRefine/Modify Search

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
OrOr

But don't show pages that have...

Other Search Criteria:

from:to:

Search Results Results 1-10 of 29

British American Tobacco Ltd v. Ministry of Health [Kenya] [February 17, 2017]

British American Tobacco appealed a 2016 court decision, which upheld nearly all elements of Kenya’s Tobacco Control Regulations. The appeals court ruled that the tobacco company’s appeal had no merit and affirmed the decision of the lower court. The earlier ruling upheld nearly all elements of the Regulations, which are designed to implement the Tobacco Control Act, including:

  • a 2% annual contribution by the tobacco industry to help fund tobacco control education, research, and cessation;
  • graphic health warnings;
  • ingredient disclosure;
  • smoke-free environments in streets, walkways, and verandas adjacent to public places and in private vehicles where children are present;
  • disclosure of annual tobacco sales and other industry disclosures; and
  • regulations limiting interaction between the tobacco industry and public health officials.

The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the tobacco company had been given adequate opportunities for participation in the development of the regulations and that the regulations do not violate the tobacco company’s constitutional rights. 

British American Tobacco Kenya Ltd. v. Ministry of Health [Kenya] [March 24, 2016]

British American Tobacco's Kenyan subsidiary filed a lawsuit claiming that Kenya’s Tobacco Control Regulations are unconstitutional. The court ruled against the tobacco company, finding that the process of developing the regulations was lawful and conducted with sufficient participation by the tobacco industry. The court upheld nearly all elements of the Regulations, which are designed to implement the Tobacco Control Act, including:

  • a 2% annual contribution by the tobacco industry to help fund tobacco control education, research, and cessation;

  • graphic health warnings;

  • ingredient disclosure;

  • smoke-free environments in streets, walkways, verandas adjacent to public places;

  • disclosure of annual tobacco sales and other industry disclosures; and

  • regulations limiting interaction between the tobacco industry and public health officials.

The court specifically noted that the Tobacco Control Act and Regulations are intended to comply with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Additionally, the court acknowledged the harm caused by tobacco products and stated it would make its decision within the context of a public health system balanced against the commercial rights of the tobacco company.

The court struck down a few minor elements of the regulations, ruling that (1) the tobacco industry is not required to provide evidence of its market share to the government; and (2) that penalties for violation cannot exceed the maximums authorized by law.

The court ruled that the regulations should take effect six months after the date of the decision. 

Youth Smoking Prevention Foundation v. Netherlands [Netherlands] [November 09, 2015]

A non-governmental organization sued the Dutch government for violating Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Article 5.3 of the FCTC requires Parties to the Convention to protect tobacco control policies from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry.  The court ruled that the NGO cannot require the Dutch government to take action in furtherance of Article 5.3 because the Article does not have a direct effect on the Dutch government. Additionally, the court found that Article 5.3’s requirements are not sufficiently clear. However, as a result of the lawsuit, the government created a document clarifying how it will implement Article 5.3. 

Institute of Public Health v. Union of India [India] [October 16, 2015]

The Institute of Public Health (IPH) filed suit seeking to bar government officials from participating in the 12th Annual Asia-Pacific Tax Forum organized by the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC).  IPH maintained that ITIC is an organization controlled by the tobacco industry and has an interest in promoting tax policies beneficial to this industry.  IPH alleged that government officials' participation in the Forum violates Art. 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and the FCTC Art. 5.3 Guidelines which obligate FCTC Parties to protect their public health policies from the commercial and other vested interest of the tobacco industry.  The court dismissed the petition finding that the FCTC Art. 5.3 only requires transparency of government and tobacco industry interactions on matters related to tobacco control or public health and does not prohibit government officials from participating in conferences sponsored by the tobacco industry.  IPH sought review of the court's dismissal of the petition, alleging that the court's order contained erroneous factual findings.  The court disposed of IPH's petition for review finding that IPH's observations cannot change the facts that were initially before the court.  The court however left open the opportunity for a future petitioner to set forth the correct position with regard to the erroneous facts. 

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in the inquiry into complaint 852/2014/LP against the European Commission regarding its compliance with the Tobacco Control Convention [European Union] [October 01, 2015]

A non-governmental organization (NGO) complained that the European Commission was violating the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires parties to protect against commercial and other vested interests of tobacco companies. The European Ombudsman agreed with the NGO that the European Commission’s policies did not provide sufficient transparency about its meetings with tobacco industry representatives. The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission put into place a policy—similar to the policy currently in place by the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety—that requires online publication of all meetings with tobacco industry representatives and publication of the minutes from those meetings. 

Cancer Patients Aid Association v. Karnataka Health and Family Welfare Department [India] [June 01, 2015]

Cancer Patients Aid Association alleged that government subsidies to tobacco farmers violate India's omnibus tobacco control law, COTPA, and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.  The court directed that all relevant departments of the Central and Karnataka Governments take steps to reduce the local demand and supply of tobacco products; provide for the rehabilitation of tobacco farmers and tobacco-related workers such as beedi workers; and reconsider the government’s policy on subsidies and incentives for tobacco cultivation for local consumption.  

Institute of Public Health v. Union of India [India] [May 01, 2015]

The Institute of Public Health (IPH) filed suit seeking to bar government officials from participating in the 12th Annual Asia-Pacific Tax Forum organized by the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC).  IPH maintained that ITIC is an organization controlled by the tobacco industry and has an interest in promoting tax policies beneficial to this industry.  IPH alleged that government officials' participation in the Forum violates Art. 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and the FCTC Art. 5.3 Guidelines which obligate FCTC Parties to protect their public health policies from the commercial and other vested interest of the tobacco industry.  The court dismissed the petition finding that the FCTC Art. 5.3 only requires transparency of government and tobacco industry interactions on matters related to tobacco control or public health and does not prohibit government officials from participating in conferences sponsored by the tobacco industry.  

Smith v. Philip Morris Companies [United States] [July 18, 2014]

A class action lawsuit against major tobacco companies argued that the companies fixed prices following “Marlboro Friday,” a day in 1993 in which a Philip Morris retail promotion lowered the price of Marlboros by approximately 20 percent. The class action represented Kansas purchasers of cigarettes who alleged that the tobacco companies conspired to fix the wholesale price of cigarettes in violation of state law. The court ruled that the class had failed to provide evidence proving price fixing and affirmed an earlier judgment in favor of the tobacco companies. In particular, the court found that the class failed to provide evidence that the tobacco companies were actively colluding with each other and not acting independently in changing prices.

ASA Adjudication on Gallaher Ltd. (A12-210929) [United Kingdom] [April 17, 2013]

This ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) sanctioned Japan Tobacco International (JTI) for misleading advertising for their campaign against plain packaging in the United Kingdom.  The Cancer Research UK, a public health organization, made a complaint about the advertisements of JTI.  The ads claimed that plain packaging of cigarettes would increase the “booming” illicit trade of tobacco and cost the government more than £3 Billion.  The ASA found that both of these claims were misleading and unrepresentative of the true facts.  The ASA ordered JTI and its subsidiary, Gallaher Ltd, to not run the ads again.

ASA Adjudication on Gallaher Ltd. (A12-208266) [United Kingdom] [March 13, 2013]

This ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) sanctioned Japan Tobacco International (JTI) for misleading advertising for their campaign against plain packaging in the United Kingdom.  The Cancer Research UK, a public health organization, made a complaint about the advertisements of JTI.  The ads claimed that plain packaging was “categorically rejected” and there was “no evidence” of its effectiveness.  The ASA found that both of these claims were misleading and unrepresentative of the true facts.  The ASA ordered JTI and its subsidiary, Gallaher Ltd, to not run the ads again.

The materials and analysis available at this website are for informational and educational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice.