We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology Newsfeed
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Your Basket
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Google Plus
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact customerservices@lexology.com

Register

Supreme Court decision on Vermont anti-detailing law has important implications for promotion of drugs and medical devices

Sidley Austin LLP

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

USA June 27 2011

On June 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that a Vermont law prohibiting pharmaceutical manufacturers from purchasing or using prescriber-identifying data in connection with detailing of physicians violated the manufacturers’ First Amendment free speech rights. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., No. 10-779, Slip Op. (June 23, 2011).

Sidley Austin LLP - Scott Bass and James C. Stansel
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Google Plus
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later

Filed under

  • USA
  • Healthcare & Life Sciences
  • IT & Data Protection
  • Litigation
  • Sidley Austin LLP

Tagged with

  • SCOTUS
  • Medical device
  • First Amendment
  • Pharmaceutical industry
  • Physician
  • Freedom of speech
  • Manufacturing
  • IMS Health
  • Opus number

Popular articles from this firm

  1. Hong Kong Issues EU Data Privacy Law Guidance on the upcoming GDPR *
  2. Top Ten Data Protection and Privacy Issues to Watch in 2016 *
  3. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Issues New Frequently Asked Questions on Customer Due Diligence Requirement *
  4. Belgian Privacy Commission Issues Guidance on Data Protection Impact Assessments Under the GDPR *
  5. U.S. Proposed Tariffs on Chinese Imports Under Section 301 *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email enquiries@lexology.com.

Send to Create
Powered by Lexology

Related topic hubs

  1. SCOTUS
  2. USA
  3. Litigation
  4. IT & Data Protection

Lexology Navigator Q&A

Compare jurisdictions: Litigation: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

  1. Russia
  2. Sweden
  3. Colombia
  4. More...
Dr Allen Giles
Principal Patent Attorney
AstraZeneca
What our clients say

"Lexology provides a "one-stop" source of informed comment."

Back to Top
  • RSS feeds
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Search
Globe Business Media Group

© Copyright 2006 - 2018 Globe Business Media Group