Find Court Cases > Sorrell v. IMS Health

Sorrell v. IMS Health

Case Date: 04/26/2011
Docket No: none

Facts of the Case 

In 2007, the Vermont legislature passed a law that banned the sale, transmission or use of prescriber-identifiable data (''PI data'') for marketing or promoting a prescription drug without the consent of the prescriber. The law also prohibited the sale, license or exchange for value of PI data for marketing or promoting a prescription drug.

Three companies -- IMS Health, Verispan and Source Healthcare Analytics, a unit of Dutch publisher Wolters Kluwer -- that collect and sell such data and by a trade group for pharmaceutical manufacturers challenged the law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit struck down the measure, holding that it violated the First Amendment because it restricts the speech rights of data miners without directly advancing legitimate state interests.

Read the Briefs for this Case
  • Brief of Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, Public Health Law & Policy, Berkeley Media Studies Group, Public Health Law Center, Center for Digital Democracy, And Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood, as Amici Curiae In Support of Petitioners
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae New England Legal Foundation In Support of Respondent Ims Health
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae Techfreedom In Support of Respondents
  • Brief for the States of Illinois, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Bloomberg L.p., the Mcgraw-hill Companies, Inc., Hearst Corporation, Propublica, the Associated Press, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press And the Texas Tribune In Support of Respondents
  • Brief of Academic Research Scientists as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondents
  • Brief Amicus Curiae of American Business Media; the Coalition for Healthcare Communication; the Consumer Data Industry Association; Corelogic; the National Association of Professional Background Screeners; And Reed Elsevier Inc. In Support of Respondent
  • Brief of Council of American Survey Research Organizations, Inc. as Amicus Curiae Supporting the Brief of Respondents Ims Health
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Louis W. Sullivan, M.d., Tommy G. Thompson, And the Healthcare Leadership Council In Support of Respondents
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, Biotechnology Industry Organization Et Al. In Support of Respondents
  • Brief of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores And American Society for Automation In Pharmacy as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondents
    • Question 

    Does a Vermont state statute banning the sale, transmission or use of prescriber-identifiable data, absent prescriber consent, unconstitutionally restrict the free speech rights of pharmaceutical research companies, manufacturers and others to use that data?

    Argument Sorrell v. IMS Health - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text  Download MP3Sorrell v. IMS Health - Opinion AnnouncementFull Transcript Text  Download MP3 Conclusion  Decision: 6 votes for IMS Health, 4 vote(s) against Legal provision: first amendment, free speech

    Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court order in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy. "Vermont's statute, which imposes content- and speaker-based burdens on protected expression, is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny," Kennedy wrote. Meanwhile, Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. "The First Amendment does not require courts to apply a special 'heightened' standard of review when reviewing such an effort," Breyer wrote. "And, in any event, the statute meets the First Amendment standard this Court has previously applied when the government seeks to regulate commercial speech."