Legal Challenges & Industry Documents

Court Cases and Legal Judgments

AUSTRALIA

Tobacco companies launched three separate legal challenges to plain packaging regulations in Australia. Judgments have been issued in two of the three cases, both of which upheld the regulations. The third case – a World Trade Organization challenge – is ongoing.

Award on Jurisdiction & Admissibility – Arbitration between Philip Morris Asia Limited and the Commonwealth of Australia
Permanent Court of Arbitration
2015

Judgment on JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia (Matter S409/2011) and British American Tobacco Australasia Limited v Commonwealth of Australia (Matter S389/2011)
High Court of Australia
2012


EUROPEAN UNION

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled against the industry’s challenge to the Tobacco Product Directive. As part of the ruling, Member States’ right to implement plain packaging regulations was affirmed.

Judgment of the Court – Case C-547/14 (standardisation of the labelling and packaging of tobacco products)
Court of Justice of the European Union
2016

Press Release – The new EU directive on tobacco products is valid
Court of Justice of the European Union
2016


UNITED KINGDOM

Tobacco companies challenged standardised packaging regulations in the United Kingdom. The High Court of Justice in England and Wales ruled against the companies on all counts and upheld the regulations.

Appeal Judgment – British American Tobacco and others v Secretary of State
High Court of Justice in England and Wales
2016

Summary of Judgment – British American Tobacco and others v Department of Health
High Court of Justice in England and Wales
2016

Full Judgment – British American Tobacco and others v Department of Health
High Court of Justice in England and Wales
2016


URUGUAY

A Philip Morris legal claim under a bilateral Switzerland-Uruguay investment agreement was dismissed July 8, 2016, regarding significant packaging restrictions (though not plain packaging).

Philip Morris v Uruguay (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
2016

 

Tobacco Company Reports and Opposition to Plain Packaging

Tobacco companies have strongly opposed proposals for plain packaging and other packaging reforms, and have adopted a strategy of focusing their concerns on intellectual property issues. For a summary of these arguments, see the following report.

Packaging Phoney Intellectual Property Claims. How multinational tobacco companies colluded to use trade & intellectual property arguments they knew were phoney to oppose plain packaging and larger health warnings
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada
Canada/International
2009

 

Response to Plain Packaging – International

Tobacco packaging regulation – an international assessment of the intended and unintended impacts
Deloitte
2011

Why Plain Packaging is in Violation of WTO Members’ International Obligations
Philip Morris International
2009

 

Response to Australian Proposed Plain Packaging Law – 2009

Expert Report: Alan Bennett – on Plain Tobacco Packaging (Removing Branding from Cigarette Packs) Bill 2009
2010

Inquiry into the Plain Tobacco Packaging (Removing Branding from Cigarette Packs) Bill 2009
Imperial Tobacco Australia
2010

Inquiry into the Plain Tobacco Packaging (Removing Branding from Cigarette Packs) Bill 2009
Philip Morris Limited
2010

 

Response to Plain Packaging Proposal in the United Kingdom – 2008

Response to the Department of Health discussion document “Consultation on the future of tobacco control, May 2008″
British American Tobacco
2008

Reponse to the UK Department of Health`s Consultation on the Future of Tobacco Control
Japan Tobacco International
2008

Response to the Department of Health`s Consultation on the Future of Tobacco Control
Philip Morris Limited
2008

Analysis of Consumer Survey Evidence Relevant to the UK Department of Health Consultation on the Future of Tobacco Control
Dr. Warren J. Keegan
2008