[Intl-tobacco] UK: Tobacco ad restriction challenged

[robert weissman]

Tobacco ad restriction challenged
BBC News

Monday, 18 October, 2004

Tobacco companies have launched a High Court challenge to strict
restrictions on advertising at the point of sale.

The regulations, contained in the 2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotion
Act, limit the size and location of promotional material in retail outlets.

But the manufacturers say they are an unlawful interference with their
commercial freedom of speech under human rights laws.

Health Secretary John Reid is resisting their application for judicial
review.

David Pannick QC, for the tobacco companies, argued the limits were so
draconian that they amounted to an effective ban on informing consumers
about products which were legally on sale.

Manufacturers say the permitted size is so small, and location so
restricted, that advertisements cannot effectively be used by more than
one brand at a time.

Mr Pannick told Mr Justice McCombe said his clients did not dispute that
smoking could damage health.

But he said the limits were disproportionate to the government's aim of
promoting public health.

Too blunt

The court challenge is being brought by BAT, Imperial Tobacco, Gallaher,
Philip Morris, and French manufacturer Societe Nationale D'Exploitation
Industrielle des Tabacs et Allumettes (Seita) along with vending machine
operator Cherwell Tobacco.

The claimants argued that the regulations prevented them from informing
consumers of the characteristics of their products so that new brands
could not be established in the market.

The regulations were "too blunt an instrument", Mr Pannick said, because
they failed to distinguish between different outlets - for instance, a
local convenience store and a nightclub.

They also discriminated against foreign manufacturers who would find it
impossible to maintain their market share without point-of-sale advertising.

Mr Pannick claimed the Health Secretary made the regulations without
properly assessing whether less severe restrictions would be sufficient
to achieve the objective of protecting children.