In Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that Vermont's "Prescription Confidentiality Law" imposes content-based and speaker-based burdens on expression and, as such, is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. Under this analysis, the Court struck down the law as unconstitutional, concluding that Vermont's justifications for the law did not outweigh the benefits of protecting the right of free speech, while also acknowledging that its ruling leaves unresolved the serious personal privacy issues stemming from computer-based data mining. In the wake of this decision, the Second Circuit has requested supplemental briefing on the implications of Sorrell for its pending case, United States v. Caronia, a criminal case in which a pharmaceutical sales representative was convicted of misbranding a drug by promoting it for several off-label uses.
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.
RegisterIf you have any questions about the service please contact customerservices@lexology.com or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Laws that prohibit the sale of certain medical information held to be an unconstitutional restraint against free speech
- Jones Day
- Theodore T. Chung , Heather M. O'Shea,, Laura A. Dahl and Dr. Christian B. Fulda
- USA
- September 6 2011
-
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at ateague@lexology.com.
Jennifer Miller
Senior Legal Counsel, Bankwest Business
Bank of Western Australia Ltd
