Editing Tobacco Control Litigation
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | ==Major Tobacco Control Litigation Victories | + | ==Major Tobacco Control Litigation Victories== |
{| class="wikitable sortable" | {| class="wikitable sortable" | ||
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 5%;" | Tobacco Company | ! style="font-weight:bold; width: 5%;" | Tobacco Company | ||
+ | ! style="font-weight:bold; width: 5%;" | Subject | ||
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 5%;" | Region | ! style="font-weight:bold; width: 5%;" | Region | ||
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 10%;" | Country | ! style="font-weight:bold; width: 10%;" | Country | ||
Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 10%;" | Year | ! style="font-weight:bold; width: 10%;" | Year | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|South-East Asian Region | |South-East Asian Region | ||
|India | |India | ||
Line 16: | Line 18: | ||
|2001 | |2001 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|South-East Asian Region | |South-East Asian Region | ||
|Sri Lanka | |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. | 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 | |2006 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Brazil | |Brazil | ||
Line 32: | Line 36: | ||
|2007 | |2007 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Brazil | |Brazil | ||
Line 40: | Line 45: | ||
|2009 | |2009 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Colombia | |Colombia | ||
Line 48: | Line 54: | ||
|2010 | |2010 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Panama | |Panama | ||
− | |'''[[ | + | |'''[[British American Tobacco]] v. Government of Panama''' |
− | [[BAT | + | [[BAT]] 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 | |2010 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Uruguay | |Uruguay | ||
|'''Abal Hermanos, S.A. v. Uruguay''' | |'''Abal Hermanos, S.A. v. Uruguay''' | ||
− | A [[PMI | + | A [[PMI]] 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 | |2010 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Peru | |Peru | ||
Line 72: | Line 81: | ||
|2011 | |2011 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|European Region | |European Region | ||
|United Kingdom | |United Kingdom | ||
Line 79: | Line 89: | ||
|2011 | |2011 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
− | + | | | |
|Western Pacific Region | |Western Pacific Region | ||
|Australia | |Australia | ||
− | |'''[[ | + | |'''[[JT]] 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. | 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 | |2012 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Costa Rica | |Costa Rica | ||
Line 96: | Line 107: | ||
|2012 | |2012 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|European Region | |European Region | ||
|Norway | |Norway | ||
− | |'''[[ | + | |'''[[Philip Morris International|Philip Morris Norway]] v. Health and Care Services of Norway''' |
− | + | 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 | |2012 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|African Region | |African Region | ||
|South Africa | |South Africa | ||
− | |'''[[ | + | |'''[[British American Tobacco|British American Tobacco South Africa (PTY) Ltd.]] v. Minister of Health, et al.''' |
− | [[BAT | + | [[BAT]] 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 | |2012 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|South-East Asian Region | |South-East Asian Region | ||
|India | |India | ||
Line 120: | Line 134: | ||
|2013 | |2013 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|European Region | |European Region | ||
|Netherlands | |Netherlands | ||
Line 128: | Line 143: | ||
|2014 | |2014 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Panama | |Panama | ||
− | |''' | + | |'''British American Tobacco Panama v. Executive Decree No. 611''' |
− | [[BAT | + | [[BAT]] 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 | |2014 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|South-East Asian Region | |South-East Asian Region | ||
|Thailand | |Thailand | ||
− | |'''[[ | + | |'''[[JT]] International (Thailand) v. Minister of Public Health''' |
− | + | 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 | |2014 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Argentina | |Argentina | ||
− | |''' | + | |'''Nobleza Piccardo v. Provincia de Santa Fe''' |
− | A [[BAT | + | A [[BAT]] 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 | |2015 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
− | + | | | |
− | |||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Canada | |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. | 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 | |2015 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Colombia | |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 | + | 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]] Colombia, agreeing that the terms are deceptive and that the administrative decision did not violate the tobacco company's intellectual property rights. |
|2015 | |2015 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Peru | |Peru | ||
− | |''' | + | |'''British American Tobacco of Peru S.A.C. v. Congress of the Republic''' |
− | [[BAT | + | [[BAT]] 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]] and affirmed the earlier decision, which found that the measure complies with the proportionality principle. |
|2015 | |2015 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|South-East Asian Region | |South-East Asian Region | ||
|Sri Lanka | |Sri Lanka | ||
|'''In the matter of Article 122(1)(b) of the Constitution''' | |'''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. | + | 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 | |2015 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
− | + | | | |
|European Region | |European Region | ||
|European Union | |European Union | ||
− | |'''R(on the Application of) | + | |'''R(on the Application of) Philip Morris Brands SARL et al. v. Secretary of State for Health''' |
− | + | PM and [[BAT]] 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 | |2016 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
− | + | | | |
− | |||
|European Region | |European Region | ||
|France | |France | ||
|'''Japan Tobacco International and Others v. Ministry of Health (plain packaging laws)''' | |'''Japan Tobacco International and Others v. Ministry of Health (plain packaging laws)''' | ||
− | [[ | + | [[JT]]I, [[PMI]], [[BAT]] 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 | |2016 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|South-East Asian Region | |South-East Asian Region | ||
|India | |India | ||
Line 213: | Line 233: | ||
|2016 | |2016 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Panama | |Panama | ||
|'''British American Tobacco Panama v. Panama''' | |'''British American Tobacco Panama v. Panama''' | ||
− | [[BAT | + | [[BAT]] 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 | |2016 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|European Region | |European Region | ||
|United Kingdom | |United Kingdom | ||
− | |'''[[BAT | + | |'''[[BAT]] 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. | 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 | |2016 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|Americas Region | |Americas Region | ||
|Uruguay | |Uruguay | ||
|'''Philip Morris SÀRL v. Uruguay''' | |'''Philip Morris SÀRL v. Uruguay''' | ||
− | [[PMI | + | [[PMI]] 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 | |2016 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | |
+ | | | ||
|African Region | |African Region | ||
|Kenya | |Kenya | ||
|'''British American Tobacco Ltd v. Ministry of Health''' | |'''British American Tobacco Ltd v. Ministry of Health''' | ||
− | [[BAT | + | [[BAT]] 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]]'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 | |2017 | ||
|} | |} | ||
− | ==Pending Litigation | + | ==Pending Litigation== |
− | {| class="wikitable | + | {| class="wikitable" |
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 5%;" |Country | ! style="font-weight:bold; width: 5%;" |Country | ||
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 10%;" |Claimant/Plantiff | ! style="font-weight:bold; width: 10%;" |Claimant/Plantiff | ||
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 30%;" |General Claim | ! style="font-weight:bold; width: 30%;" |General Claim | ||
! style="font-weight:bold; width: 10%;" |Procedural Status | ! style="font-weight:bold; width: 10%;" |Procedural Status | ||
− | |||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | |India |
− | | | + | |PMI (in partnership with GPI) |
− | | The tobacco industry | + | |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 |
− | | | + | |BAT through Bangladesh Cigarette Manufacturers Association |
− | | The tobacco industry | + | |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 |
− | | | + | |JT International Company (Thailand), Limited |
− | | | + | JT 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 |
− | | | + | |JT International Company (Thailand), Limited |
− | | | + | JT 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. (BAT) |
− | | | + | |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 | + | |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 | + | |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 | + | |The case was filed in May 2015. |
− | |||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | |United States |
− | | | + | |Cyclops Vapor 2, LLC |
− | | | + | |
− | | The | + | 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. | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | | The | ||
− | |||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | |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 | + | |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 | + | |Uganda |
− | + | |BAT Uganda Ltd. | |
− | | Constitutional challenge to most of the provisions of Uganda’s 2015 Tobacco Control Act, including: | + | |Constitutional challenge to most of the provisions of Uganda’s 2015 Tobacco Control Act, including: |
*minimum pictorial health warnings of 65% of the package; | *minimum pictorial health warnings of 65% of the package; | ||
*a smoking ban; | *a smoking ban; | ||
Line 371: | Line 359: | ||
*prohibitions on privileges and incentives to the tobacco industry; | *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 | *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 | + | *provisions for criminal and forfeiture penalties |
− | | The Constitutional Court denied | + | |The Constitutional Court denied BAT’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. |
− | + | |BAT Kenya sued the Kenya government to void the Tobacco Control Regulations 2014 in their entirety, which include the following measures: | |
− | | The | + | *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 BAT 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. BAT 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 |
− | | | + | |JTI-Macdonald Corp. |
− | | | + | |JTI 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 | + | |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 | + | |The lawsuit was filed on April 25, 2012. |
− | |||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | |Pakistan |
− | | | + | |Society for Alternative Media & Research (SAMAR) + BAT |
− | | | + | |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 BAT subsidiary, has joined the case as third party. |
− | + | |Unknown. | |
− | | | ||
|} | |} | ||
− |