Editing Tobacco Control Litigation

==Major Tobacco Control Litigation Victories <ref>Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, [https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/major_litigation_decisions Major Litigations Decisions], Accessed August 2018</ref>==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 5%;" | Tobacco Company
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 5%;" | Region
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 10%;" | Country
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 30%;" | Case
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 10%;" | Year
|-
|
|South-East Asian Region
|India
|'''Deora v. India & Ors'''

An Indian businessman sued the government arguing that smoking in public sacrifices non-smokers’ health and lives without due process under the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court acknowledged the harms caused by smoking and prohibited smoking in eight types of public places. 
|2001
|-
|
|South-East Asian Region
|Sri Lanka
|'''Ceylon Tobacco Company Ltd., et al. v. Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva, et al.'''

Tobacco companies sued government officials, challenging a tobacco control law that would prohibit smoking in enclosed public places. The Supreme Court found the law constitutional, ruling that exposure to tobacco smoke is harmful to public health and a law could be validly enacted to prevent such exposure in enclosed public places. 
|2006
|-
|
|Americas Region
|Brazil
|'''Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) v. Souza Cruz S/A'''

Tobacco company Souza Cruz sued the government for shutting down smoking points in the International Airport of Rio de Janeiro-Galeão. The Superior Court of Justice overturned an earlier decision and ruled that the tobacco company's "smoking points" violated the law and must be closed.
|2007
|-
|
|Americas Region
|Brazil
|'''Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) v. Souza Cruz S/A'''

Tobacco company Souza Cruz challenged a resolution that mandated all tobacco packaging and advertising warn consumers of the health risks associated with smoking. The Regional Federal Court upheld the resolution, finding that the government agency did not exceed its powers. 
|2009
|-
|
|Americas Region
|Colombia
|'''Caceres Corrales v. Colombia'''

Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of legislative measures banning the advertisement and promotion of tobacco products, arguing that the measures violate the freedoms of economy and enterprise. The Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, citing the country's obligations under the WHO FCTC.
|2010
|-
|[[BAT|British American Tobacco Ltd.]]
|Americas Region
|Panama
|'''[[BAT|British American Tobacco Ltd.]] v. Government of Panama'''

[[BAT|British American Tobacco Ltd.]] challenged a decree requiring smoke-free environments and banning tobacco advertising. The Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the decree based on the constitutional right to health and the objectives of the WHO FCTC.
|2010
|-
|[[PMI|Philip Morris International]]
|Americas Region
|Uruguay
|'''Abal Hermanos, S.A. v. Uruguay'''

A [[PMI|Philip Morris International]] affiliate challenged the constitutionality of a law under which the Ministry of Health required health warnings to cover 80% of the principal display areas of tobacco packages. The Supreme Court found the law constitutional and noted that it was based on the WHO FCTC.
|2010
|-
|
|Americas Region
|Peru
|'''5000 Citizens v. Article 3 of Law No. 28705'''

Five thousand Peruvian citizens challenged the constitutionality of an article of the tobacco control law that completely prohibits smoking in certain public places, including outdoor areas of educational facilities. The Constitutional Court dismissed the lawsuit. The Court confirmed the constitutionality and legality of the law, finding that the smoking ban was the ideal means to comply with the WHO FCTC. 
|2011
|-
|
|European Region
|United Kingdom
|'''The Queen on the Application of Sinclair Collis Ltd v. Secretary of State for Health et al.'''
Vending machine operators challenged a ban on cigarette vending machines as a violation of an EU treaty regarding restrictions on imports. The Court of Appeal rejected the lawsuit. The Court found that the ban is a lawful way to reduce youth smoking and noted support in the WHO FCTC for a vending machine ban. 
|2011
|-
|
|Western Pacific Region
|Australia
|'''[[JT|Japan Tobacco International SA]] v. Commonwealth of Australia'''

Tobacco companies challenged the constitutionality of a law requiring "plain" packaging of tobacco products, including large pictorial health warnings. The High Court upheld the constitutionality of the law. The Court ruled that although the government had "taken" the property of the tobacco companies, there had been no "acquisition" because neither the Government nor any third party acquired any benefit as a result. 
|2012
|-
|
|Americas Region
|Costa Rica
|'''Legislative Consultation with Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court'''

This decision is an official consultation by ten legislators to the Constitutional Court regarding the constitutionality of Costa Rica's broad tobacco control legislation. The Court declared the law constitutional and explained that the country has the power to place effective restrictions on tobacco with the goal of protecting public health. 
|2012
|-
|[[PMI|Philip Morris Norway]]
|European Region
|Norway
|'''[[PMI|Philip Morris Norway]] v. Health and Care Services of Norway'''

[[PMI|Philip Morris Norway]] challenged Norway's ban on the display of tobacco products at retail establishments. The Oslo District Court upheld the ban, determining that it is necessary to denormalize tobacco use and that no alternative, less intrusive measure could produce a similar result.
|2012
|-
|[[BAT|British American Tobacco South Africa (PTY) Ltd.]]
|African Region
|South Africa
|'''[[BAT|British American Tobacco South Africa (PTY) Ltd.]] v. Minister of Health, et al.'''

[[BAT|British American Tobacco South Africa (PTY) Ltd.]] challenged the constitutionality of a law prohibiting advertising or promotion of tobacco products. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling finding the law constitutional. The Court found that the limitation on speech was justified by the hazards of smoking. 
|2012
|-
|
|South-East Asian Region
|India
|'''Health for Millions v. Union of India'''

Tobacco companies challenged government rules on tobacco advertising, including limits on point of sale advertising and health warnings. The Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision which had prevented implementation of the rules. 
|2013
|-
|
|European Region
|Netherlands
|'''Dutch Association of CAN v. Netherlands'''

The Netherlands created an exception for small cafés in the country's law banning smoking in indoor public places. A tobacco control organization challenged the exception as a violation of the WHO FCTC, which requires Parties to prohibit smoking in all indoor public places. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that the law's small café exception violated the WHO FCTC and was illegal.
|2014
|-
|[[BAT|British American Tobacco Panama]]
|Americas Region
|Panama
|'''[[BAT|British American Tobacco Panama]] v. Executive Decree No. 611'''

[[BAT|British American Tobacco Panama]] challenged the constitutionality of a point of sale display ban. The Supreme Court upheld the ban and noted that even freedom of expression could be restricted if necessary to protect public health.
|2014
|-
|[[JT|Japan Tobacco International (Thailand)]]
|South-East Asian Region
|Thailand
|'''[[JT|Japan Tobacco International (Thailand)]] v. Minister of Public Health'''

[[JT|Japan Tobacco]] challenged a requirement of 85% pack warnings. The Supreme Administrative Court found that the requirements are not outside the intended scope of the tobacco control law and allowed implementation of the pack warnings while the case is ongoing.
|2014
|-
|[[BAT|British American Tobacco Ltd.]]
|Americas Region
|Argentina
|'''Nobleza Piccardo v. Provincia de Santa Fe'''

A [[BAT|British American Tobacco Ltd.]] affiliate unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of a subnational law that banned tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. The Argentine Supreme Court ruled that the law is a reasonable restriction on commercial freedoms given the harm caused by tobacco. 
|2015
|-
|
|Americas Region
|Canada
|'''Imperial Tobacco Canada v. Attorney General of Quebec'''

Tobacco companies challenged the constitutionality of a law allowing the government to sue tobacco manufacturers to recover the health care costs for individuals with tobacco-related illnesses. The Appeals Court of Quebec upheld the constitutionality of the law and dismissed the tobacco companies' appeal.
|2015
|-
|[[BAT|British American Tobacco Colombia]]
|Americas Region
|Colombia
|'''British American Tobacco Colombia v. Ministry of Health'''

A Ministry of Health administrative decision found the expressions “Click & On,” “Click & Roll,” “Krystal Frost,” “Filter Kings,” and “Frozen Nights” on tobacco product packages are a form of deceptive advertising. The State Council rejected a challenge by [[BAT|British American Tobacco Colombia]], agreeing that the terms are deceptive and that the administrative decision did not violate the tobacco company's intellectual property rights. 
|2015
|-
|
|Americas Region
|Peru
|'''[[BAT|British American Tobacco of Peru S.A.C.]] v. Congress of the Republic'''

[[BAT|British American Tobacco of Peru S.A.C.]] challenged a law prohibiting the sale of tobacco packs containing fewer than 10 cigarettes, alleging that the law violated the freedom of enterprise and industry. A Civil Chamber of the Superior Court rejected an appeal by [[BAT|British American Tobacco of Peru S.A.C.]] and affirmed the earlier decision, which found that the measure complies with the proportionality principle.
|2015
|-
|
|South-East Asian Region
|Sri Lanka
|'''In the matter of Article 122(1)(b) of the Constitution'''

The Sri Lankan President sought judicial review of a bill that would require pictorial health warnings to cover 80% of each tobacco pack. Ceylon Tobacco intervened in the case opposing the pack warnings. The Supreme Court ruled that the pack warnings do not violate the constitution and referenced the importance of protecting public health. 
|2015
|-
|[[PMI|Philip Morris Brands SARL]]
|European Region
|European Union
|'''R(on the Application of) [[PMI|Philip Morris Brands SARL]] et al. v. Secretary of State for Health'''

[[PMI|Philip Morris Brands SARL]] and [[BAT|British American Tobacco Ltd.]] sought judicial review of the UK's decision to implement the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), and the case was referred to the Court of Justice of the EU on questions of EU law. The Court upheld all aspects of the TPD, including pictorial warnings, a menthol ban, and the potential for countries to enact plain packaging.
|2016
|-
|[[JT|Japan Tobacco International]]
[[PMI|Philip Morris International]]
[[BAT|British American Tobacco Ltd.]]
|European Region
|France
|'''Japan Tobacco International and Others v. Ministry of Health (plain packaging laws)'''

[[JT|Japan Tobacco International]], [[PMI|Philip Morris International]], [[BAT|British American Tobacco Ltd.]] and others brought six legal challenges against France's plain packaging regulations. The Conseil d’Etat (the highest administrative jurisdiction in France) dismissed all six challenges, holding that to the extent there is any infringement of property rights, the infringement is justified by the public health objective.
|2016
|-
|
|South-East Asian Region
|India
|'''Karnataka Beedi Industry Association v. Union of India'''

Pro-tobacco groups challenged India's rules increasing pictorial health warnings to 85% of tobacco product packaging. The Supreme Court of India consolidated the various cases and ruled that the pictorial health warnings may be implemented while the lawsuit continues. 
|2016
|-
|[[BAT|British American Tobacco Panama]]
|Americas Region
|Panama
|'''British American Tobacco Panama v. Panama'''

[[BAT|British American Tobacco Panama]] and others challenged a decree banning point of sale displays. The Supreme Court upheld the decree, finding no violation of tobacco companies' intellectual property rights or consumers' rights to access information. The court referenced the WHO FCTC Article 13 Guidelines.
|2016
|-
|[[BAT|British American Tobacco Ltd.]]
|European Region
|United Kingdom
|'''[[BAT|British American Tobacco Ltd.]] v. UK Department of Health'''

Major tobacco companies challenged the UK's plain packaging restrictions. In an extensive ruling, the High Court of Justice dismissed the tobacco companies' claims, finding that the plain packaging restrictions were justified, did not violate the tobacco companies' property rights, and were supported by the WHO FCTC. 
|2016
|-
|[[PMI|Philip Morris International]]
|Americas Region
|Uruguay
|'''Philip Morris SÀRL v. Uruguay'''

[[PMI|Philip Morris SÀRL]] brought an investment arbitration claim alleging that two of Uruguay’s packaging laws (large warnings and a single presentation/brand requirement) violated a Bilateral Investment Treaty with Switzerland. The Tribunal ruled in favor of Uruguay, and highlighted the importance of the WHO FCTC in setting tobacco control objectives.
|2016
|-
|[[BAT|British American Tobacco Ltd.]]
|African Region
|Kenya
|'''British American Tobacco Ltd v. Ministry of Health'''

[[BAT|British American Tobacco Ltd.]] appealed a ruling that upheld Kenya’s Tobacco Control Regulations including requiring pictorial warning labels, expanding smoke-free places, and limiting interactions between the tobacco industry and government officials. The appeals court affirmed the earlier decision and ruled that [[BAT|British American Tobacco's]] appeal had no merit. After issuing an order on March 9, 2017 staying the decision of the appeals court while the appeal is pending, the Supreme Court heard the case on April 26, 2018. The Supreme Court decision is pending.
|2017
|}

==Pending Litigation<ref> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, [https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/pending_litigation Pending Litigation], Accessed Augustt 2018 </ref>==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 5%;" |Country
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 10%;" |Claimant/Plantiff
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 30%;" |General Claim
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 10%;" |Procedural Status
|-
|India
|[[Philip Morris International]] (in partnership with GPI)
|The tobacco industry challenged the validity of the 2014 rules that require 85 percent graphic health warnings on both sides of tobacco product packaging.
|Lower court ruled in favor of the tobacco industry.  Government and health groups appealed to the Supreme Court of India.  Petition submitted in January 2018.  Supreme Court stayed operation of lower court decision.  Matter to be decided soon on the merits.
|-
|Bangladesh
|[[British American Tobacco]] through Bangladesh Cigarette Manufacturers Association
|The tobacco industry appealed a judgment declaring illegal a National Tobacco Control Cell notification that allowed the printing of the graphic health warning on the bottom 50% of tobacco packs and packages. 
|Matter is pending - one in the Appellate Division and the other in the High Court Division.
|-
|Thailand
|Japan Tobacco International Company (Thailand), Limited 
Japan Tobacco International SA
|Tobacco manufacturers brought case to stop the Minister of Public Health from implementing a rule that would expand the size of the combined picture and text health warnings from 55% to 85% of the front and back of cigarette packaging.
|On May 29, 2014, the court ruled that the rule requiring larger health warnings should remain in effect until the court issues a final decision on the merits of the case.
|-
|Thailand
|Japan Tobacco International Company (Thailand), Limited
Japan Tobacco International SA
|Tobacco manufacturers brought case to stop the Minister of Public Health from implementing a rule that would expand the size of the combined picture and text health warnings from 55% to 85% of the front and back of cigarette packaging.
|On May 29, 2014, the court ruled that the rule requiring larger health warnings should remain in effect until the court issues a final decision on the merits of the case.
|-
|Colombia
| 
|The tobacco industry is seeking to invalidate a local ordinance that banned the sale of tobacco products near educational and public health institutions in Popayan.
|Pending. However, the local ordinance is not currently being enforced because of another claim submitted by an individual citizen that has represented the tobacco industry in other cases but is acting on his own behalf in this case.
|-
|Brazil
|Souza Cruz Ltda. ([[British American Tobacco]])
|The tobacco industry challenged the constitutionality of the requirement of including a 30% text health warning in the front face of the packs.
|Submitted in May 2017. Pending before 7.ª Vara Federal do Distrito Federal. ACT submitted an amicus brief in September 2017.
|-
|Canada
|Imperial Tobacco Canada
|Imperial Tobacco Canada challenged a law banning the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, in the province of Quebec.
|The case was filed in February 2016.
|-
|Canada
|Imperial Tobacco Canada
|Imperial Tobacco Canada challenged a law banning the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, in the province of New Brunswick.
|The case was filed in March 2016.
|-
|Canada
|Imperial Tobacco Canada
|Imperial Tobacco Canada challenged a law banning the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, in the province of Nova Scotia.
|The case was filed in May 2015.
|-
|United States
|Cyclops Vapor 2, LLC

Tiger Vapor, LLC

Karma S Clouds, LLC
|E-cigarettes companies challenged the FDA rule “deeming” other tobacco products to be subject to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
|The case was filed on July 8, 2016.
|-
|United States
|Enrique Fernando Sanchez Icaza

Global Premium Cigars, LLC
|A cigar company challenged the FDA rule “deeming” other tobacco products to be subject to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
|The case was filed on June 1, 2016.
|-
|United States
|Lost Art Liquids, LLC
|A manufacturer of e-cigarette devices and liquid nicotine challenged the FDA rule “deeming” other tobacco products to be subject to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
|The case was filed on May 19, 2016.
|-
|European Union
|Swedish Match
|Swedish Match has brought a legal challenge against the European Union ban on moist snuff.
|The case was referred to the European High Court of Justice on January 26, 2017.
|-
|Uganda
|[[British American Tobacco]] Uganda Ltd.
|Constitutional challenge to most of the provisions of Uganda’s 2015 Tobacco Control Act, including:
*minimum pictorial health warnings of 65% of the package;
*a smoking ban;
*prohibitions on the sale of tobacco products in specified locations and on the sale of smokeless tobacco, shisha, and ENDS;
*prohibitions on retail product displays and vending machine sales;
*prohibitions on privileges and incentives to the tobacco industry;
*a two-year year cooling off period before moving from government with responsibility for tobacco control to the tobacco industry or from the tobacco industry to government with responsibility for tobacco control; and
*provisions for criminal and forfeiture penalties
|The Constitutional Court denied [[British American Tobacco]]’s application for a temporary injunction on March 15, 2017 following a combined hearing on the injunction application and on the merits of the underlying petition on May 10, 2017. The Court has not yet issued a decision on the main petition.
|-
|Kenya
|British American Tobacco Kenya Ltd.
|[[British American Tobacco]] Kenya sued the Kenya government to void the Tobacco Control Regulations 2014 in their entirety, which include the following measures:
*Solatium compensatory annual contribution (2% of the value of tobacco products manufactured or imported)  
*Protections against public-tobacco industry interactions
*Requirement for picture-based health warnings including the lack of technical repository given to [[British American Tobacco]] and the compliance date
*Smoking ban in “streets, walkways, verandas adjacent to” public places
*Requirement for owners to apply for certificate of compliance for designated smoking areas
*Tobacco product and industry disclosures.
|The High Court of Kenya issued a ruling in favor of the government on March 24, 2016. The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision on February 17, 2017. [[British American Tobacco]] Kenya then appealed to the Supreme Court. After issuing an order on March 9, 2017 staying the decision of the appeals court while the appeal is pending, the Supreme Court heard the case on April 26, 2018. The Supreme Court decision is pending.
|-
|Canada
|Japan Tobacco International- Macdonald Corp.
|Japan Tobacco International Macdonald filed a lawsuit challenging Canada’s Tobacco Products Labelling Regulations, which were issued in 2011. The Regulations increase the size of mandatory pictorial health warnings to 75% of the package. The Regulations also require health information messages and toxic emissions statements to be displayed on cigarette packages.
|The lawsuit was filed on April 3, 2012.
|-
|Canada
|Imperial Tobacco Canada
|Imperial Tobacco filed a lawsuit challenging Canada’s Tobacco Products Labelling Regulations, which were issued in 2011. The Regulations increase the size of mandatory pictorial health warnings to 75% of the package. The   Regulations also require health information messages and toxic emissions statements to be displayed on cigarette packages.
|The lawsuit was filed on April 25, 2012.
|-
|Pakistan
|Society for Alternative Media & Research (SAMAR) + [[British American Tobacco]]
|The Ministry of Health has delayed implementation of 85% health warnings on several occasions, and, as of the date of this review, the new health warning requirements have yet to be implemented. Public health groups have  challenged this delay in the Islamabad High Court, and the Pakistan Tobacco Company, a [[British American Tobacco]] subsidiary, has joined the case as third party.
|Unknown. 
|}