regulation

ANA Joins Fight Against Tobacco Control Act

smoking

The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) has filed a "friend of the court" brief supporting six major tobacco companies and two other industry groups in a civil suit against the U.S. The suit argues that regulations on tobacco advertising within the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, passed earlier this year, are unconstitutional because the restrictions taken together make tobacco advertising untenable.

Dan Jaffe, EVP of the organization, tells Marketing Daily that the ANA supports the goals of the act -- to protect minors from using tobacco products -- but that restricting advertising is unconstitutional.

Says Jaffe: "This is much more than just a case about tobacco advertising. If this type of restriction is possible in tobacco, there is no question that it will be the opening wedge. The problem is that people are already starting to try to apply this to other products," he says. "Slippery slope is not a metaphor, it's a reality. The Supreme Court has made very clear there is not product-by-product exception. If it applies to one product category it applies to all."

advertisement

advertisement

The American Association of Advertising Agencies and the American Advertising Federation are co-signatories in the brief supporting Commonwealth Brands, Inc., et al. v. United States of America filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The industry brief, written by Robert Corn-Revere, a First Amendment attorney with the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, also says that provisions in the act could restrict advertising as free speech as defined in the First Amendment.

The act mandates the Food and Drug Administration to promulgate a rule that among other things, bans outdoor advertising for tobacco products within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds; requires all tobacco advertising and direct mail to be black text on a white background, except in magazines, newspapers or other periodicals with adult readership of 85% or more, or fewer than 2 million readers under the age of 18; bans the use of promotions and promotional items containing the name or logo of a tobacco product; allows sponsorship of athletic, musical, social or other cultural events in corporate name only; and requires all tobacco advertisers to fund and participate in a national educational campaign discouraging use of tobacco products by minors. The FDA would require the annual fund established for this campaign to total $150 million.

"I can't think of anything anywhere as near as extensive as this is," says Jaffe. "It affects every medium." He says the plaintiffs and amici curiæ expect the case to reach the Supreme Court within months.

3 comments about "ANA Joins Fight Against Tobacco Control Act ".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Steve Barnes, December 2, 2009 at 3:47 p.m.

    Paula's comment represents the typical anti-tobacco mind set. here's an idea; if you don't want lung cancer don't smoke...DUH!!!!!!!

  2. Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, December 2, 2009 at 5:39 p.m.

    Steve, selfish is the nicest word for you. Second hand smoke can make people with various diseases and illness very dead. You don't know who is standing next to you. Suck it in.

  3. Jerry Foster from Energraphics, December 3, 2009 at 4:21 a.m.

    This is like banning asbestos commercials.

    They should ban the product if it is dangerous (and tobacco is). But such regulations basically say that legal products and their makers can be harassed. This says "if you can't ban them, make them miserable" which may sound politically expedient, but possibly not Constitutional. For tobacco, I tend to sympathize with the regulators because they have been criminally bribing corrupt pols for a century, but why not then fine them $20Billion for their past criminal activity which would be Constitutional? The slippery slope of this kind of regulation is true here. Here is an example: feminists recently got a law passed forcing international dating agencies to background check US men who want to say hello to foreigners (IMBRA). A lower court then upheld this saying that all online dating sites could be forced by the government to background check their users (meaning more such laws are on the way if someone doesn't rechallenge this). In court it was said that men trying to meet women was creating an atmosphere like second-hand smoke - that women online shouldn't have to endure strangers saying hi to them who haven't been sex offender checked yet. So the slope is not only slippery, it is almost at a 90 degree incline.

    Now tobacco has been proven to be dangerous to everyone at all times, whereas dating people has been proven to get people married with children (presumably a good thing). But the type of person who likes to regulate doesn't care about what has been proven or not (see ClimateGate - nothing wrong with stopping pollution but there's no excuse for lying about facts). That is where the danger lies.

    Another important issue is that the EU correctly bans new substances until they are proven to be safe for the human body. The USA does the converse, allowing possibly dangerous new substances (nanotechnology) until it is proven to be dangerous. This attitude, as with what happened with asbestos, will cause a lot of deaths. Asbestos was never a free speech issue because it involved assaulting others' lungs with a lethal agent - the product itself always needed to be banned, not the advertising.

    BTW, Russia won't allow alcohol ads that feature human beings or anthropogenic animals drinking.

Next story loading loading..