蛇油推销员或知识提供者:标签外促销和商业言论学说。

Q2 Social Sciences Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Pub Date : 2013-01-01
Constance E Bagley, Joshua Mitts, Richard J Tinsley
{"title":"蛇油推销员或知识提供者:标签外促销和商业言论学说。","authors":"Constance E Bagley,&nbsp;Joshua Mitts,&nbsp;Richard J Tinsley","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Second Circuit's December 2012 decision in United States v. Caronia striking down the prohibition on off-label marketing of pharmaceutical drugs has profound implications for economic regulation in general, calling into question the constitutionality of restrictions on the offer and sale of securities under the Securities Act of 1933, the solicitation of shareholder proxies and periodic reporting under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, mandatory labels on food, tobacco, and pesticides, and a wide range of privacy protections. In this Article we suggest that Caronia misconstrues the Supreme Court's holding in Sorrell v. IMS Health, which was motivated by concerns of favoring one industry participant over another rather than a desire to return to the anti-regulator fervor of the Lochner era. Reexamining the theoretical justification for limiting truthful commercial speech shows that a more nuanced approach to regulating off-label marketing with the purpose of promoting public health and safety would pass constitutional muster. We argue that as long as the government both has a rational basis for subjecting a particular industry to limits on commercial speech intended to further a legitimate public interest, rather than unfounded paternalism, and does not discriminate against disfavored industry participants, those limits should be subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson standard. We believe that our articulation of the commercial speech doctrine post-Sorrell will help resolve the current split in the Circuits on the appropriate standard of review in cases involving both restrictions on commercial speech and mandated speech. Finally, we critique the FDA's 2011 Guidance for Responding to Unsolicited Requests for Off- Label Information (draft) and present a proposal for new rules for regulating the off-label marketing of pharmaceutical drugs based on transparency, the sophistication of the listener and the type of information offered, and the requirement that the pharmaceutical company comply with ongoing duties of training, monitoring, reporting, and auditing.</p>","PeriodicalId":39833,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy","volume":"23 2","pages":"337-93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Snake oil salesmen or purveyors of knowledge: off-label promotions and the commercial speech doctrine.\",\"authors\":\"Constance E Bagley,&nbsp;Joshua Mitts,&nbsp;Richard J Tinsley\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Second Circuit's December 2012 decision in United States v. Caronia striking down the prohibition on off-label marketing of pharmaceutical drugs has profound implications for economic regulation in general, calling into question the constitutionality of restrictions on the offer and sale of securities under the Securities Act of 1933, the solicitation of shareholder proxies and periodic reporting under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, mandatory labels on food, tobacco, and pesticides, and a wide range of privacy protections. In this Article we suggest that Caronia misconstrues the Supreme Court's holding in Sorrell v. IMS Health, which was motivated by concerns of favoring one industry participant over another rather than a desire to return to the anti-regulator fervor of the Lochner era. Reexamining the theoretical justification for limiting truthful commercial speech shows that a more nuanced approach to regulating off-label marketing with the purpose of promoting public health and safety would pass constitutional muster. We argue that as long as the government both has a rational basis for subjecting a particular industry to limits on commercial speech intended to further a legitimate public interest, rather than unfounded paternalism, and does not discriminate against disfavored industry participants, those limits should be subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson standard. We believe that our articulation of the commercial speech doctrine post-Sorrell will help resolve the current split in the Circuits on the appropriate standard of review in cases involving both restrictions on commercial speech and mandated speech. Finally, we critique the FDA's 2011 Guidance for Responding to Unsolicited Requests for Off- Label Information (draft) and present a proposal for new rules for regulating the off-label marketing of pharmaceutical drugs based on transparency, the sophistication of the listener and the type of information offered, and the requirement that the pharmaceutical company comply with ongoing duties of training, monitoring, reporting, and auditing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39833,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"23 2\",\"pages\":\"337-93\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2012年12月,第二巡回法院在美国诉卡罗尼亚案(United States v. Caronia)中推翻药品说明书外营销禁令的裁决对总体经济监管产生了深远影响,质疑1933年《证券法》对证券发行和销售的限制、1934年《证券交易法》对股东代理的征求和定期报告的限制、食品、烟草和农药的强制性标签的合宪性。以及广泛的隐私保护。在这篇文章中,我们认为Caronia曲解了最高法院在Sorrell诉IMS Health案中的判决,该判决的动机是出于对一个行业参与者的偏袒,而不是为了回到Lochner时代的反监管热情。重新审视限制真实商业言论的理论依据表明,以促进公共健康和安全为目的,对标签外营销进行更细致入微的监管将通过宪法审查。我们认为,只要政府有合理的依据来限制特定行业的商业言论,以促进合法的公共利益,而不是毫无根据的家长作风,并且不歧视不受欢迎的行业参与者,这些限制应该受到中央哈德逊标准的中间审查。我们相信,我们对索雷尔案后商业言论原则的阐述将有助于解决目前巡回法院在涉及商业言论限制和强制言论案件的适当审查标准上的分歧。最后,我们对FDA 2011年《回应未经请求的标签外信息请求指南(草案)》进行了批评,并提出了一项关于药品标签外营销监管新规则的建议,该规则基于透明度、听者的成熟度和提供的信息类型,以及制药公司遵守持续培训、监测、报告和审计职责的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Snake oil salesmen or purveyors of knowledge: off-label promotions and the commercial speech doctrine.

The Second Circuit's December 2012 decision in United States v. Caronia striking down the prohibition on off-label marketing of pharmaceutical drugs has profound implications for economic regulation in general, calling into question the constitutionality of restrictions on the offer and sale of securities under the Securities Act of 1933, the solicitation of shareholder proxies and periodic reporting under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, mandatory labels on food, tobacco, and pesticides, and a wide range of privacy protections. In this Article we suggest that Caronia misconstrues the Supreme Court's holding in Sorrell v. IMS Health, which was motivated by concerns of favoring one industry participant over another rather than a desire to return to the anti-regulator fervor of the Lochner era. Reexamining the theoretical justification for limiting truthful commercial speech shows that a more nuanced approach to regulating off-label marketing with the purpose of promoting public health and safety would pass constitutional muster. We argue that as long as the government both has a rational basis for subjecting a particular industry to limits on commercial speech intended to further a legitimate public interest, rather than unfounded paternalism, and does not discriminate against disfavored industry participants, those limits should be subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson standard. We believe that our articulation of the commercial speech doctrine post-Sorrell will help resolve the current split in the Circuits on the appropriate standard of review in cases involving both restrictions on commercial speech and mandated speech. Finally, we critique the FDA's 2011 Guidance for Responding to Unsolicited Requests for Off- Label Information (draft) and present a proposal for new rules for regulating the off-label marketing of pharmaceutical drugs based on transparency, the sophistication of the listener and the type of information offered, and the requirement that the pharmaceutical company comply with ongoing duties of training, monitoring, reporting, and auditing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1991, the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy (JLPP) has quickly risen to become one of the leading public policy journals in the nation. A fixture among the top 10 policy journals, JLPP has consistently been among the top 100 student-edited law journals. JLPP publishes articles, student notes, essays, book reviews, and other scholarly works that examine the intersections of compelling public or social policy issues and the law. As a journal of law and policy, we are a publication that not only analyzes the law but also seeks to impact its development.
期刊最新文献
Environmental Law and Policy Civil Rights Law and Policy A Historic Introduction to Law and Public Policy Security Law and Policy Institutions and Power—Congress, the Courts, and the President
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1