Tobacco Control

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Tobacco Control 2006;15:50-58; doi:10.1136/tc.2005.014142
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ibrahim, J K
Right arrow Articles by Glantz, S. A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ibrahim, J K
Right arrow Articles by Glantz, S. A
Related Collections
Right arrow Tobacco use (youth)

RESEARCH PAPER

Tobacco industry litigation strategies to oppose tobacco control media campaigns

J K Ibrahim*, Stanton A Glantz

Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Correspondence to:
Stanton A Glantz
PhD, Box 1390, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390, USA; glantz{at}medicine.ucsf.edu

Objective: To document the tobacco industry’s litigation strategy to impede tobacco control media campaigns.

Methods: Data were collected from news and reports, tobacco industry documents, and interviews with health advocates and media campaign staff.

Results: RJ Reynolds and Lorillard attempted to halt California’s Media Campaign alleging that the campaign polluted jury pools and violated First Amendment rights because they were compelled to pay for anti-industry ads. The American Legacy Foundation was accused of violating the Master Settlement Agreement’s vilification clause because its ads attacked the tobacco industry. The tobacco companies lost these legal challenges.

Conclusion: The tobacco industry has expanded its efforts to oppose tobacco control media campaigns through litigation strategies. While litigation is a part of tobacco industry business, it imposes a financial burden and impediment to media campaigns’ productivity. Tobacco control professionals need to anticipate these challenges and be prepared to defend against them.


Keywords: advertising; public policy; youth smoking prevention




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Public HealthHome page
J. K. Ibrahim and S. A. Glantz
The Rise and Fall of Tobacco Control Media Campaigns, 1967 2006
Am J Public Health, August 1, 2007; 97(8): 1383 - 1396.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.