Interesting First Amendment Law Review Note

more+
less-

A recent law review note, Kristie Lasalle, "A Prescription for Change: Citizens United's Implications for Regulation of Off-Label Promotion of Prescription Pharmaceuticals, 19 J. L. & Pol’y 867 (2011), copy here (Please see link below), puts an interesting twist on the First Amendment arguments against the FDA's ban against truthful promotion of off-label use. It analogizes between the FDA's vague and discretionarily enforced prohibition and the corporate campaign contribution limitations struck down in Citizens United v. F.E.C., 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). While the article was written before the Supreme Court's decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2653, slip op. (2011), that Sorrell undertook review in a pharmaceutical detailing case that was more rigorous than your usual Central Hudson commercial speech case (something we noted here) (Please see link below) provides additional basis for the author's analogy to Citizens United - a non-commercial speech case.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Administrative Agency Updates, Communications & Media Updates, Constitutional Law Updates, Products Liability Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dechert LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

CONNECT

Reporters on Deadline