Sorrell v. Ims Health Inc.

131 S.Ct. 2653 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Pharmacies, as a matter of business routine and federal law, receive prescriber-identifying information when processing prescriptions. Many sell this information to data miners who produce reports on prescriber behavior. Data miners lease these reports to pharmaceutical manufacturers subject to nondisclosure agreements. Pharmaceutical sales representatives then use the reports to refine their marketing tactics and increase sales to doctors. Vermont enacted the Prescription Confidentiality Law that prohibited the sale of records containing prescriber-identifiable information. The law prohibits pharmacies, health insurers, and similar entities from selling prescriber-identifying information, absent the prescriber's consent. Pharmacies, health insurers, and similar entities may not use prescriber-identifying information for marketing unless the prescriber consents. Pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmaceutical marketers cannot use prescriber-identifying information for marketing, again absent the prescriber's consent. The State of Vermont justified this law in that doctors were being “improperly informed” with one-sided information on issues that the sales process for Pharmaceutical manufacturers bombarded them with. Vermont data miners and an association of pharmaceutical manufacturers (P) sued contending the law violates their First Amendment rights as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court denied relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. It held that the law violates the First Amendment by burdening the speech of pharmaceutical marketers and data miners without an adequate justification. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.