TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Banzhaf, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.

The petitioner claimed that smoking advertisements broadcasted on a televisions station, WCBS, implicitly suggested that smoking was a "desirable, manly and a necessary part of a rich full life." According the applicant, WCBS's refusal to provide equal time for presentation of important controversial health issues related to cigarette smoking violated the fairness doctrine of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The FCC agreed with the applicant based on government reports and a federal law on labeling and advertising, all of which suggested that normal use of tobacco products could be hazardous to the user's health. The FCC required the respondent to provide significant broadcast time for presenting the case against cigarette smoking. On appeal, WCBS and a number of intervenors claimed that the FCC's decision was in error, among other reasons, because the federal law on labeling and advertising preempted the FCC's standing to regulate broadcasts of tobacco product advertisements and because the ruling violated the station's free speech rights under the Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the FCC's ruling and found that existing broadcasts were inadequate to inform the public of the extent of the harms of cigarette smoking.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Banzhaf, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., 405 F.2d 1082, United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit (1968).

  • United States
  • Nov 21, 1968
  • United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit

Parties

Plaintiff

  • John F. Banzhaf, III
  • National Association of Broadcasters
  • The Tobacco Institute, Incorporated
  • WTRF-TV, Inc.

Defendant

  • Federal Communications Commission
  • United States of America

Third Party

  • American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
  • Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
  • Heart Disease Research Foundation
  • Larus & Brother Co., Inc.
  • Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.
  • National Association of Broadcasters
  • P. Lorillard Co.
  • Philip Morris, Inc.
  • R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  • THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY
  • The Tobacco Institute, Inc.
  • United States Tobacco Co.
  • WTRF-TV, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (as amended), 15 USC §§ 1331 - 1341

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Enforcement Action by a Private Individual or Private Entity
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.

Tobacco Control Topics

Contents and Disclosures Measures
Measures for testing, measuring, regulating, or disclosing the contents and emissions of tobacco products. (See FCTC Arts. 9 and 10)
Education
Measures to promote and strengthen public awareness of tobacco control issues. (See FCTC Art. 12)
Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship
Measures restricting any form of direct or indirect tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. (See FCTC Art. 13)

Substantive Issues

Right to Freedom of Expression
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.
Right to Procedural Due Process
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Preemption
The subject matter of the case should be dealt with at a state level or national level.
Procedural Defect
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2024 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by