Free Trade vs. Tobacco Control

In the face of more meaningful national tobacco control regulations, the tobacco industry has increasingly used global trade rules to fight back. Free trade agreements are aimed at increasing production and consumption. Of course, with tobacco our goal is exactly the opposite. By treating tobacco the same as wheat or semiconductors, free trade agreements unwittingly contribute to the growing tobacco epidemic.

U.S. - Indonesia clove cigarette case

In September 2011, at the behest of Indonesia – and by extension Big Tobacco - the World Trade Organization decided that the U.S. ban on cigarette flavorings is illegal under our WTO obligations, which may allow the industry to go back to using candy flavors to entice kids to start smoking – and get addicted.

Philip Morris International vs. Uruguay

The government of Uruguay is in the midst of a legal battle with Philip Morris International over its warning labels and other marketing restrictions. In 2010, PMI initiated a dispute based on an investment treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay, demanding an injunction and monetary damages. The case is still in its infancy, but it seems clear that PMI has little chance of winning on the merits of their argument. Instead, their purpose is to cost the government so much in legal defense fees that it and other developing countries will forego future tobacco regulations.

Read more
Legal analysis of the case

Philip Morris vs. Norway

September 2011 was a disappointing month for tobacco control advocates. The Court of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) found that Norway’s 2010 ban on the display of tobacco products constitutes a “quantitative restriction on imports” and is there unlawful under EFTA rules. The decision invalidates existing law in Norway and Iceland, and places in grave jeopardy pending similar legislation in Britain and the rest of the European Union. This is in spite of the fact that FCTC Guidelines call for bans on point of sale advertising, and Norway has no domestic cigarette production to outcompete imports.

Legal analysis of the verdict and implications for point-of-sale advertising bans
EFTA judgment

Philip Morris vs. Australia

Philip Morris Asia has threatened to sue the government of Australia over it’s plan to require plain packaging of tobacco products, basically taking away one of the last spaces for Big Tobacco to advertise and promote its product. The legal action will take place based on an investment treaty with Hong Kong, the corporate home of PM Asia. The Australian government, which spent years preparing and researching the legal basis for the new regulation, has vowed to fight the suit.