Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. — Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Restricting Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Speech


On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., a case testing the constitutional limits of governmental restrictions on the speech of pharmaceutical manufacturers. By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that the law at issue — a Vermont statute that prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from obtaining or using “prescriber-identifiable information” collected from pharmacists for the purposes of “marketing or promoting a prescription drug” — is a “speaker- and content-based burden on protected expression” that cannot survive “heightened judicial scrutiny.” In stressing that “[s]peech in aid of pharmaceutical marketing . . . is a form of expression protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” Sorrell may set the stage for a constitutional challenge to what is arguably the most draconian governmental restriction on healthcare related speech: the Food and Drug Administration’s web of regulations that make it a federal crime for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to engage in truthful, non-misleading speech about off-label uses of its FDA-approved products.

In 2007, Vermont enacted the Prescription Confidentiality Law, commonly referred to as “Act 80,” in response to the concern that pharmaceutical manufacturers were having too much success in persuading doctors to prescribe brand-name drugs rather than cheaper drugs promoted by generic manufacturers as alternatives. The Vermont legislature had concluded that manufacturers’ successes in marketing brand-name drugs were largely the result of their ready access to so-called “prescriber-identifiable information,” publicly available information from which individual doctors’ prescribing practices could be discerned. According to the Vermont legislature, manufacturers had been using prescriber-identifiable information to help their sales representatives “shape their messages [to doctors] by ‘tailoring’ their ‘presentations to individual prescriber styles, preferences, and attitudes.’” As its chosen solution to this problem, the Vermont legislature included in Act 80 the following provision: “Pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmaceutical marketers shall not use prescriber-identifiable information for marketing or promoting a prescription drug unless the prescriber consents . . . .” The Vermont legislature intended the provision to make it more difficult for manufacturers to steer doctors toward brand-name drugs and, thereby, to help reduce the overall cost of health care in the state.

Please see full article below for more information.

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

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.

© Ropes & Gray LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Ropes & Gray LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.