IMS Health Inc. v. Sorrell

1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Newsflash: “Speech In Aid Of Pharmaceutical Marketing [is] Protected By The First Amendment.”

    Strasburger & Price, LLPMichael A. WalshOctober 28, 2011

    In finding that the Vermont statute at issue in Sorrell infringed on First Amendment rights, the Second Circuit stated: “[t]he statute is therefore clearly aimed at influencing the supply of information, a core First Amendment concern…the First Amendment teaches that courts should assume that truthful commercial information ‘is not in itself harmful.’” 630 F.3d 263, 272 (2d Cir. 2010). The Court went on to conclude that the state could achieve its goals with less restrictive means:In other words the statute seeks to alter the marketplace of ideas by taking out some truthful information that the state thinks could be used too effectively.