United States: Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. - Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Restricting Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Speech

On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., a case testing the constitutional limits of governmental restrictions on the speech of pharmaceutical manufacturers. By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that the law at issue — a Vermont statute that prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from obtaining or using "prescriber-identifiable information" collected from pharmacists for the purposes of "marketing or promoting a prescription drug" — is a "speaker- and content-based burden on protected expression" that cannot survive "heightened judicial scrutiny." In stressing that "[s]peech in aid of pharmaceutical marketing . . . is a form of expression protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment," Sorrell may set the stage for a constitutional challenge to what is arguably the most draconian governmental restriction on healthcare related speech: the Food and Drug Administration's web of regulations that make it a federal crime for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to engage in truthful, non-misleading speech about off-label uses of its FDA-approved products.

In 2007, Vermont enacted the Prescription Confidentiality Law, commonly referred to as "Act 80," in response to the concern that pharmaceutical manufacturers were having too much success in persuading doctors to prescribe brand-name drugs rather than cheaper drugs promoted by generic manufacturers as alternatives. The Vermont legislature had concluded that manufacturers' successes in marketing brand-name drugs were largely the result of their ready access to so-called "prescriber-identifiable information," publicly available information from which individual doctors' prescribing practices could be discerned. According to the Vermont legislature, manufacturers had been using prescriber-identifiable information to help their sales representatives "shape their messages [to doctors] by 'tailoring' their 'presentations to individual prescriber styles, preferences, and attitudes.'" As its chosen solution to this problem, the Vermont legislature included in Act 80 the following provision: "Pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmaceutical marketers shall not use prescriber-identifiable information for marketing or promoting a prescription drug unless the prescriber consents . . . ." The Vermont legislature intended the provision to make it more difficult for manufacturers to steer doctors toward brand-name drugs and, thereby, to help reduce the overall cost of health care in the state.

Convinced that Act 80's speech restriction violated the First Amendment, an association of brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers and a data-collection firm brought suit in federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Vermont's attorney general William Sorrell. The plaintiffs lost in the district court but prevailed on appeal in the Second Circuit, with a split panel holding that Act 80 "violates the First Amendment by burdening the speech of pharmaceutical marketers . . . without an adequate justification." When the Supreme Court granted certiorari just two months later, it was clear that the case had the potential to be one of the most important First Amendment cases of the October 2010 Term.

Writing for a six-member majority, Justice Kennedy had little trouble affirming the Second Circuit's decision. Justice Kennedy emphasized over and over again that Act 80's provision was a "content- and speaker-based restriction" on speech that even Vermont conceded is neither false nor misleading: "The statute . . . disfavors marketing, that is, speech with a particular content. More than that, the statute disfavors specific speakers, namely pharmaceutical manufacturers. . . . The law on its face burdens disfavored speech by disfavored speakers." In fact, Justice Kennedy pointed out, "'[i]n its practical operation,' Vermont's law 'goes even beyond mere content discrimination, to actual viewpoint discrimination.'" Accordingly, even if viewed as a restriction solely on "commercial speech," the provision "imposes a speaker- and content-based burden on protected expression, and that circumstance is sufficient to justify application of heightened scrutiny." After all, a "'consumer's concern for the free flow of commercial speech often may be far keener than his concern for urgent political dialogue,'" and "[t]hat reality has great relevance in the fields of medicine and public health, where information can save lives."

Justice Kennedy easily rejected Vermont's argument that Act 80 could survive heightened scrutiny. He began by reiterating that "[i]n the ordinary case it is all but dispositive to conclude that a law is content-based and, in practice, viewpoint-discriminatory," suggesting that "whether a special commercial speech inquiry or a stricter form of judicial scrutiny is applied" is essentially immaterial in such circumstances. He then explained why Vermont's asserted justifications for Act 80's speech restrictions — namely, shielding doctors from the "harassment" of pharmaceutical sales representatives and improving public health by lowering healthcare costs — were woefully inadequate: First, "if pharmaceutical marketing affects treatment decisions, it does so because doctors find it persuasive," and "the fear that speech might persuade provides no lawful basis for quieting it." And, second, noting that Act 80 has "the effect of preventing detailers — and only detailers — from communicating with physicians in an effective and informative manner," Justice Kennedy explained that the Constitution does not allow the government to "achieve its policy objectives through the indirect means of restraining certain speech by certain speakers," nor does "the 'fear that people would make bad decisions if given truthful information' . . . justify content-based burdens on speech," particularly "when the audience, in this case prescribing physicians, consists of 'sophisticated and experienced' consumers." In sum, Vermont had "burdened a form of protected expression that it found too persuasive" yet, at the same time, "left unburdened those speakers whose messages are in accord with its own views. This the State cannot do."

Although the statute directly at issue in Sorrell concerned pharmaceutical manufacturers' marketing generally, the decision will almost certainly have a significant impact on future challenges by pharmaceutical manufacturers to the array of speech restrictions that both the federal government and the states have placed upon them, in particular the FDA's so-called "off-label promotion" regulations. To that extent, the fact that the Court issued a broad, full-throated condemnation of Vermont's paternalistic rationales for selectively burdening the speech of pharmaceutical manufacturers — repeatedly calling Act 80 a "content- and speaker-based" restriction on speech and notably declining to apply the "intermediate" scrutiny called for by Justice Breyer in dissent — is particularly noteworthy. The dissent specifically observed that the majority's analysis called into question many existing regulatory restrictions on speech, identifying in particular FDA's restrictions on "what a pharmaceutical firm can, and cannot, tell potential purchasers about its products." The majority nowhere disavowed that likely logical extension of its holding.

For many years, pharmaceutical manufacturers and their counsel have been arguing, in court briefs, legal and other publications, and before the FDA and Department of Justice, that laws restricting the truthful and non-misleading speech of pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding new uses of their approved products are unconstitutional content- and speaker-based restrictions on First Amendment rights. The opinion of the six-member Sorrell majority plants a stake in the ground firmly on the side of First Amendment rights: content- and speaker-based restrictions on truthful and non-misleading speech, commercial or otherwise, will not likely survive constitutional challenge.

It might not take long before Sorrell's impact is felt in connection with FDA's off-label speech restrictions: another case that is currently pending in the Second Circuit is United States v. Caronia, which involves a First Amendment challenge to the misdemeanor criminal conviction of a pharmaceutical sales representative for promoting the prescription drug Xyrem for off-label uses. Caronia was argued on December 2, 2010, but the court has not yet issued an opinion. It is entirely possible that the panel has been waiting for the Supreme Court's decision in Sorrell. Now that the Sorrell decision has issued, it will undoubtedly provide further support for the defendant's First Amendment challenge.

The full text of the Supreme Court opinion is available here.


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions