throbber
Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 52 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. __
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY;
`SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO
`COMPANY, INC.; ITG BRANDS, LLC;
`LIGGETT GROUP LLC; NEOCOM, INC.;
`RANGILA ENTERPRISES INC.; RANGILA
`LLC; SAHIL ISMAIL, INC.; and IS LIKE
`YOU INC.;
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG
`ADMINISTRATION;
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;
`
`STEPHEN M. HAHN,
`in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
`United States Food and Drug Administration;
`and
`
`ALEX M. AZAR II,
`in his official capacity as Secretary of the United
`States Department of Health and Human
`Services;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 52 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`For nearly fifty-five years, cigarette packages have included textual warnings that
`
`convey factual, uncontroversial information about the risks of smoking. In 2009, however, Congress
`
`sought to replace these factual disclosures with government-created anti-smoking advocacy.
`
`Specifically, Congress instructed the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or “the Agency”) to
`
`issue regulations that require massive “color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of
`
`smoking.” Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, § 201(a), 123
`
`Stat. 1776, 1845 (2009) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1333(d)[1]).1 In 2011, FDA did so, but before the
`
`regulation took effect, the D.C. Circuit held that it violated the First Amendment. FDA has now issued
`
`a second graphic-warnings regulation. Tobacco Products; Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and
`
`Advertisements, 85 Fed. Reg. 15,638 (Mar. 18, 2020) (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. pt. 1141) (“the Rule”)
`
`(attached as Ex. 6). It too is invalid.
`
`2.
`
`The Rule requires the use of eleven new textual warnings, accompanied by eleven
`
`graphic images—such as images of a specimen cup filled with bloody urine and a pair of diseased feet
`
`with several amputated toes—that are designed to frighten, shock, and disgust adult cigarette
`
`consumers. In addition, these “warnings” must occupy the top 50% of the front and back of cigarette
`
`packages and the top 20% of cigarette advertising. These requirements cross the line into
`
`governmental anti-smoking advocacy.
`
`3.
`
`Such “warnings” are unprecedented. Never before in the United States have producers
`
`of a lawful product been required to use their own packages and advertising to convey an emotionally
`
`charged government message urging adult consumers to shun their product. These requirements force
`
`
`1 Two separate provisions of the Tobacco Control Act were codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1333(d).
`To avoid confusion, this Complaint will refer to those provisions as Sections 201(a) and 202(b) of the
`Tobacco Control Act and will cite to those provisions as § 1333(d)[1] and § 1333(d)[2], based on the
`order in which they appear in the statute.
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 3 of 52 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs not to convey purely factual and uncontroversial statements about the risks of smoking, but
`
`to become a mouthpiece for the government’s anti-smoking advocacy.
`
`4.
`
`This is precisely the type of compelled speech that the First Amendment prohibits. As
`
`the Supreme Court has explained, the government may not compel Plaintiffs to “use their private
`
`property as a ‘mobile billboard’ for the State’s ideological message.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705,
`
`715 (1977). Nor may the government use compelled disclosures to drown out commercial speech
`
`regarding lawful products that it does not like. “The State can express [its] view through its own
`
`speech. But a State’s failure to persuade does not allow it to hamstring the opposition. The State may
`
`not burden the speech of others in order to tilt public debate in a preferred direction.” Sorrell v. IMS
`
`Health, Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 578–79 (2011).
`
`5.
`
`When FDA first tried to transform cigarette packages and advertising into billboards
`
`for the government’s anti-smoking message, the D.C. Circuit had no difficulty holding that the rule
`
`violated the First Amendment. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, 696 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012),
`
`overruled in part by Am. Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 760 F.3d 18, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc). The
`
`court recognized that FDA’s warnings were not “factual” disclosures; rather, they were “unabashed
`
`attempts to evoke emotion (and perhaps embarrassment) and browbeat consumers into quitting.” Id.
`
`at 1217. The court also recognized that the warnings were not “uncontroversial”; instead, “many of
`
`the images chosen by FDA could be misinterpreted by consumers.” Id. at 1216. And the court held
`
`that “FDA has not provided a shred of evidence … showing that the graphic warnings will ‘directly
`
`advance’ its interest in reducing the number of Americans who smoke.” Id. at 1219.
`
`6.
`
`FDA’s new rule fares no better. Once again, the Rule is an unconstitutional attempt
`
`to compel Plaintiffs to disparage their own products, frighten and shame their own customers, and
`
`proclaim the government’s anti-smoking message. Once again, the warnings would mislead consumers
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 4 of 52 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`about the risks of smoking. And once again, FDA cannot show that the Rule would meaningfully
`
`affect consumers’ smoking behaviors or beliefs.
`
`7.
`
`FDA’s back-to-back failures to develop a constitutional rule point to a larger problem:
`
`the Tobacco Control Act’s graphic-warnings mandate itself is an unconstitutional attempt “to remove
`
`a popular but disfavored product from the marketplace.” Sorrell, 564 U.S. at 577. Given the Act’s
`
`directive, FDA will undoubtedly make a third attempt to develop a graphic-warnings rule after this
`
`one is invalidated, and the resulting rule will inevitably suffer from the same constitutional problems.
`
`The Court should break this cycle by striking down both the Rule and the Act’s graphic-warnings
`
`requirement.
`
`8.
`
`The Rule has yet more flaws. For example, in issuing the Rule, FDA contravened
`
`several core requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. In
`
`addition, FDA lacked statutory authority for its revisions to the textual warnings in the Tobacco
`
`Control Act.
`
`9.
`
`In light of these problems, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court (1) declare
`
`that the Rule and the Act’s graphic-warnings requirement violate the First Amendment to the United
`
`States Constitution, (2) declare that the Rule violates the APA and the Tobacco Control Act,
`
`(3) preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing either the Rule or the Act’s
`
`graphic-warnings requirement, and (4) vacate the Rule in its entirety.
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is a North Carolina corporation
`
`headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Reynolds manufactures, sells, distributes, and
`
`advertises cigarettes nationwide, including in this district.
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 5 of 52 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., is a New Mexico corporation
`
`headquartered in Oxford, North Carolina. Santa Fe manufactures, sells, distributes, and advertises
`
`cigarettes nationwide, including in this district.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff ITG Brands, LLC is a Texas limited liability company headquartered in
`
`Greensboro, North Carolina. ITG Brands manufactures, sells, distributes, and advertises cigarettes
`
`nationwide, including in this district.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Liggett Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in
`
`Mebane, Alamance County, North Carolina. Liggett manufactures cigarettes and, through an affiliate,
`
`sells, distributes, and advertises them nationwide, including in this district.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Neocom, Inc., is a Texas corporation headquartered in Tyler, Texas. Neocom,
`
`Inc. operates three convenience stores in Tyler that sell cigarettes in this district.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Rangila Enterprises Inc. is a Texas corporation headquartered in Fort Worth,
`
`Texas. Rangila Enterprises Inc. operates five convenience stores in Fort Worth that sell cigarettes.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Rangila LLC is a Texas limited liability company headquartered in Fort Worth,
`
`Texas. Rangila LLC operates convenience stores in Fort Worth, Hurst, and Terrell that sell cigarettes.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff Sahil Ismail, Inc. is a Texas corporation headquartered in Grapevine, Texas.
`
`Sahil Ismail, Inc. operates a convenience store in Grapevine that sells cigarettes.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff Is Like You Inc. is a Texas corporation headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.
`
`Is Like You Inc. operates a convenience store in Fort Worth that sells cigarettes.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is a
`
`federal agency of the United States. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Tobacco
`
`Control Act, HHS is responsible for regulating cigarettes marketed in the United States. 21 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 321(d), 387a(a). HHS is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 6 of 52 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Defendant FDA is a federal agency of the United States within HHS. FDA regulates
`
`cigarettes marketed in the United States using authority delegated to it by HHS. Id. § 387a(e). FDA is
`
`headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant Alex M. Azar II is the Secretary of HHS. Secretary Azar oversees FDA’s
`
`activities and is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the Tobacco Control Act and
`
`the Rule. Secretary Azar is sued in his official capacity.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant Dr. Stephen M. Hahn is the Commissioner of FDA. Commissioner Hahn
`
`oversees the implementation and day-to-day enforcement of the Tobacco Control Act and the Rule.
`
`Commissioner Hahn is sued in his official capacity.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`23.
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 2201,
`
`and 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
`
`24.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because it is where one of
`
`the Plaintiffs resides.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`25.
`
`The Government’s Historical Approach To Reducing Smoking
`
`For decades, the government has used a multi-pronged approach to reducing smoking.
`
`The government has promulgated messages about the dangers of smoking; it has severely restricted
`
`the speech of tobacco manufacturers; and it has otherwise regulated the advertising, sale, and use of
`
`cigarettes.
`
`26.
`
`First, the government has required that cigarette packages and advertising display
`
`factual warnings about the risks of smoking. In 1965, Congress “establish[ed] a comprehensive Federal
`
`program to deal with cigarette labeling and advertising with respect to any relationship between
`
`smoking and health.” Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, Pub. L. No. 89-92, 79 Stat. 282,
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 7 of 52 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`282 (1965) (the “Labeling Act”). Specifically, the Labeling Act mandated that cigarette packages
`
`include the following warning: “CAUTION: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health.”
`
`Id. at 283.
`
`27.
`
`In 1984, Congress amended the Labeling Act to require that all cigarette packages and
`
`advertising include a series of rotating warnings that cover a variety of smoking risks:
`
`• “SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart
`Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.”
`
`• “SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces
`Serious Risks to Your Health.”
`
`• “SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result
`in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight.”
`
`• “SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon
`Monoxide.”
`
`Comprehensive Smoking Education Act, Pub. L. No. 98-474, 98 Stat. 2200, 2201–02 (1984). These
`
`warnings have become known as the “Surgeon General’s warnings,” and they are in effect today.
`
`28.
`
`Second, the government has systematically limited the avenues through which Plaintiffs
`
`can advertise their lawful products. For example, federal law prohibits Plaintiffs from advertising
`
`cigarettes in television and radio advertisements, see 15 U.S.C. § 1335, media that are well-suited to
`
`reach a large number of consumers.
`
`29.
`
`Federal law also prohibits Plaintiffs from doing the following:
`
`a.
`
`sponsoring “any athletic, musical, artistic, or other social or cultural event, or
`
`any entry or team in any event, in the brand name … , logo, symbol, motto,
`
`selling message, recognizable color or pattern of colors, or any other indicia of
`
`product identification identical or similar to, or identifiable with, those used
`
`for any brand of cigarettes,” 21 U.S.C. § 387a-1(a)(2); 21 C.F.R. § 1140.34(c);
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 8 of 52 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`b.
`
`marketing, licensing, distributing, or selling any promotional item (such as hats
`
`and t-shirts) bearing the “brand name … , symbol, motto, selling message,
`
`recognizable color or pattern of colors, or any other indicia of product
`
`identification identical or similar to, or identifiable with, those used for any
`
`brand of cigarettes,” 21 U.S.C. § 387a-1(a)(2); 21 C.F.R. § 1140.34(a); and
`
`c.
`
`“distribut[ing] or caus[ing] to be distributed any free samples of cigarettes,” 21
`
`U.S.C. § 387a-1(a)(2)(G); 21 C.F.R.§ 1140.16(d).
`
`30.
`
`Federal law also provides that federal agencies, states and subdivisions, and Indian
`
`tribes may “enact, adopt, promulgate, and enforce any law, rule, regulation, or other measure with
`
`respect to tobacco products that is in addition to, or more stringent than” certain aspects of the Act,
`
`including with respect to “advertising and promotion,” 21 U.S.C. § 387p, and that states or localities
`
`may enact statutes and promulgate regulations that impose “specific bans or restrictions on the time,
`
`place, and manner, but not content, of the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes,” 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1334(c).
`
`31. Many cigarette manufacturers (including Reynolds and Santa Fe) are also subject to
`
`the Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”), which settled litigation brought by forty-six states. Under
`
`this agreement, the participating manufacturers are subject to additional restrictions on cigarette
`
`advertising, including prohibitions on using billboard and transit advertising, paid product placement,
`
`event sponsorships, and advertising
`
`in sports stadiums and arenas. See MSA § III(d),
`
`https://tinyurl.com/y6te8olv.
`
`32.
`
`Together, these advertising restrictions leave Plaintiffs with few avenues through
`
`which they can effectively communicate truthful information about their lawful products to adult
`
`cigarette consumers.
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 9 of 52 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Third, the government has imposed numerous non-speech restrictions on the
`
`advertising, sale, and use of cigarettes. For example, federal law prohibits the sale of cigarettes to
`
`anyone under the age of twenty-one, see Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. No.
`
`116-94, 133 Stat. 2534 (2019), and imposes taxes on cigarettes that are designed to deter cigarette use,
`
`see, e.g., 27 C.F.R. § 40.1 et seq. See also Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), State and
`
`Territorial Laws Prohibiting Sales of Tobacco Products to Persons Aged < 21 Years (Feb. 21, 2020),
`
`https://tinyurl.com/socswzw (explaining that such strategies can “help prevent and reduce youth
`
`tobacco product use”). In addition, state and local governments across the country have regulated
`
`who may sell cigarettes, who may use cigarettes, and where cigarettes may be used.
`
`34.
`
`Fourth, the government has run multiple public-education campaigns urging smokers
`
`to quit. For example, between 2009 and 2014, FDA spent more than $500 million on such campaigns.
`
`Comment Letter of RAI Services Co. at 32, Docket No. FDA-2019-N-3065 (Oct. 11, 2019) (the
`
`“Reynolds Comments”) (citing U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, No. 14-561, Most FDA Spending
`
`Funded Public Education, Regulatory Science, and Compliance and Enforcement Activities at 16–17 (June 2014),
`
`https://tinyurl.com/y93gktex) (attached as Ex. 2). And since 2014, FDA has run multiple public-
`
`education campaigns, including The Real Cost, Fresh Empire, This Free Life, and Every Try Counts. Id. FDA
`
`has touted these campaigns as “highly successful” and as “yielding tremendous results.” Id. at 33
`
`(quoting Norman E. Sharpless, Press Announcement (Aug. 20, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/y3kmouoa).
`
`Indeed, FDA alleged that The Real Cost had “prevented up to 587,000 youth nationwide from initiating
`
`smoking between the campaign’s launch in February 2014 and November 2016, half of whom might
`
`have gone on to become established smokers.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
`
`35.
`
`Other government agencies have run similar campaigns. For example, the CDC
`
`regularly runs public-education campaigns, and the Surgeon General has issued more than thirty
`
`reports about the health risks of smoking. Id. at 13; see also CDC’s Successful Tips From Former Smokers
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 10 of 52 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`Campaign
`
`Returns
`
`on
`
`March
`
`23,
`
`CDC
`
`(Mar.
`
`23,
`
`2020),
`
`https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0323-smoker-tips-return.html.
`
`36.
`
`This multi-pronged approach—factual warnings, advertising restrictions, non-speech
`
`restrictions, and public-education campaigns—coincided with effectively universal public awareness
`
`of the risks of smoking. Over the past several decades, the public has widely understood that smoking
`
`is harmful. For example, data from FDA’s own Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health
`
`(“PATH”) survey shows that 99.5% of individuals believe that cigarette smoking is harmful to health,
`
`including 91% who believe that it is “very or extremely harmful,” 7% who believe it is “somewhat
`
`harmful,” and 1.5% who believe it is “slightly harmful.” Reynolds Comments at 14.
`
`37.
`
`It would be difficult, if not impossible, to improve these numbers. Experts generally
`
`agree that, “as a practical matter, getting to awareness levels above 80 or 90 percent is unrealistic.”
`
`Reynolds Comments at 14 (brackets and quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the percentage of
`
`Americans who know that smoking is harmful to health is higher than the percentage of Americans
`
`who know that the Earth revolves around the sun (74%), or the percentage of young Americans who
`
`know where the United States is on a map (94%). Id.
`
`38.
`
`At the same time, smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption have fallen
`
`dramatically. For example:
`
`a.
`
`Between 1965 and 2017, the percentage of adults who smoked cigarettes fell
`
`from 42.4% to 14%. Id. at 23; see also CDC, Current Cigarette Smoking Among
`
`Adults
`
`in
`
`the United
`
`States
`
`(last
`
`updated Nov.
`
`18,
`
`2019),
`
`https://tinyurl.com/jdqoxrq (explaining that, in 2018, the percentage of adults
`
`who smoked cigarettes fell to 13.7%).
`
`b.
`
`Between 1981 and 2017, the number of cigarettes purchased annually in the
`
`United States dropped from 640 billion to 249 billion—a decline of more than
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 11 of 52 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`60% despite an increase in the U.S. population of more than 100 million.
`
`Reynolds Comments at 23.
`
`c.
`
`Between 1997 and 2017, the percentage of high school students who smoked
`
`fell from 36.4% to 8.1%. Id.; see also CDC, Youth and Tobacco Use (last updated
`
`Dec. 10, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/jvsmmen (explaining that, in 2019, the
`
`percentage of high school students who smoked fell to 5.8%).
`
`39.
`
`Indeed, youth and adult smoking rates are at historic lows. As Mitch Zeller, the
`
`Director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, recently testified before Congress, “[w]e’ve made
`
`such progress in reducing the number of kids who smoke cigarettes. The numbers that are coming
`
`out will report historically low rates of kids smoking cigarettes.” The Federal Response to the Epidemic of
`
`E-Cigarette Use, Especially Among Children, and the Food and Drug Administration’s Compliance Policy: Hearing
`
`Before the Subcomm. on Econ. and Consumer Policy of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Reform, 116th Cong. (2019)
`
`(statement of Mitch Zeller, Director, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration);
`
`see also CDC, Cigarette Smoking Among U.S. Adults Lowest Ever Recorded (Nov. 8, 2018),
`
`https://tinyurl.com/y5wcor58.
`
`B.
`40.
`
`The Tobacco Control Act
`
`In 2009, Congress changed the government’s approach to cigarette warnings by
`
`enacting the Tobacco Control Act. Pub. L. No. 111-31, § 201 (amending section 4 of the Labeling
`
`Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1333). Specifically, Congress transformed the factual and uncontroversial warnings
`
`on cigarette packages and advertising into government-created anti-smoking advocacy.
`
`41.
`
`The Tobacco Control Act requires that cigarette packages and advertising bear one of
`
`nine textual warnings:
`
`• “WARNING: Cigarettes are addictive.”
`
`• “WARNING: Tobacco smoke can harm your children.”
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 12 of 52 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`• “WARNING: Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease.”
`
`• “WARNING: Cigarettes cause cancer.”
`
`• “WARNING: Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease.”
`
`• “WARNING: Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby.”
`
`• “WARNING: Smoking can kill you.”
`
`• “WARNING: Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in nonsmokers.”
`
`• “WARNING: Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health.”
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1333(a)(1), (b)(1).
`
`42.
`
`The Act also directs FDA to “issue regulations that require color graphics depicting
`
`the negative health consequences of smoking to accompany” these textual warnings. Id. § 1333(d)[1].
`
`43.
`
`Together, the textual warnings and color graphics must occupy the top 50% of the
`
`front and back of cigarette packages and the top 20% of cigarette advertising. Id. § 1333(a)(2), (b)(2).
`
`The Act does not explain why Congress believed such large warnings were necessary.
`
`44.
`
`The Act gives FDA a limited ability to adjust the textual warnings as part of its
`
`rulemaking to require graphic warnings. Specifically, FDA can “adjust the type size, text and format
`
`of the label statements specified in subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) as the Secretary determines
`
`appropriate so that both the graphics and the accompanying label statements are clear, conspicuous,
`
`legible and appear within the specified area.” Id. § 1333(d)[1].
`
`45.
`
`After the graphic warnings take effect, FDA has a greater ability to adjust them.
`
`Specifically, FDA may, via rulemaking, “adjust the format, type size, color graphics, and text of any of
`
`the label requirements … if the Secretary finds that such a change would promote greater public
`
`understanding of the risks associated with the use of tobacco products.” Id. § 1333(d)[2].
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 13 of 52 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`46.
`
`In addition to adopting new textual warnings and directing FDA to issue a regulation
`
`adopting graphic images, the Tobacco Control Act imposes a related set of labeling requirements.
`
`These requirements (the “related requirements”) require that cigarette packages display:
`
`• “the name and place of business of the tobacco product manufacturer, packer, or
`distributor,” 21 U.S.C. § 387c(a)(2)(A);
`
`• “an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure, or
`numerical count,” id. § 387c(a)(2)(B);
`
`• “an accurate statement of the percentage of the tobacco used in the product that is
`domestically grown tobacco and the percentage that is foreign grown tobacco,” id.
`§ 387c(a)(2)(C); and
`
`• where applicable, “the statement ‘Sale only allowed in the United States,’” id. § 387t(a).
`
`47.
`
`The Act provides that the new textual and graphic warnings, and each of the related
`
`requirements, will become effective “15 months after the issuance of [a graphic-warnings rule].” Pub.
`
`L. No. 111-31, § 201(b) (setting the effective date for the amendments to 15 U.S.C. § 1333); id.
`
`§ 103(q)(5) (using identical text to set the effective date for the related requirements in 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 387c(a)(2)); id. § 301 (using identical text to set the effective date for the related requirement in 21
`
`U.S.C. § 387t(a)).
`
`C.
`48.
`
`FDA’s First Graphic-Warnings Rule
`
`On June 22, 2011, FDA issued a rule implementing the Act’s graphic-warnings
`
`requirement. Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements, 76 Fed. Reg. 36,629 (June 22,
`
`2011) (the “2011 Rule”). The 2011 Rule required that all cigarette packages and advertising bear one
`
`of nine disturbing images, such as images of a body on an autopsy table, diseased body parts, and a
`
`wailing baby.
`
`49.
`
`FDA freely admitted that these images were designed to make consumers “depressed,
`
`discouraged, and afraid” to buy cigarettes. Id. at 36,638 (quotation marks omitted). FDA also admitted
`
`that these images were designed to convey the government’s anti-smoking message. FDA said that
`
`– 12 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 14 of 52 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`that these images were designed to “rebrand[] our cigarette packs”; convey that “smoking is gross”;
`
`“dispel[] the notion that somehow [smoking] is cool”; and “encourage smokers to quit.” Press Briefing
`
`by Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and FDA
`
`Commissioner Margaret Hamburg (June 21, 2011), https://tinyurl.com/yyxc8x88. Indeed, FDA
`
`admitted that graphic warnings were designed to make “‘every single pack of cigarettes in the country
`
`[a] mini billboard’ for the government’s anti-smoking message.” R.J. Reynolds, 696 F.3d at 1212
`
`(quoting FDA, Tobacco Strategy Announcement (Nov. 10, 2010)).
`
`50.
`
`FDA claimed that the 2011 Rule was designed to further the government’s interest in
`
`“reducing the number of Americans, particularly children and adolescents, who use cigarettes.”
`
`76 Fed. Reg. at 36,629. But FDA’s own study determined that the warnings would not advance that
`
`interest. The study concluded that the warnings would reduce smoking rates by a mere 0.088%, a
`
`number that FDA conceded was statistically indistinguishable from zero. Id. at 36,775–76. As FDA
`
`explained: “our effectiveness estimates are in general not statistically distinguishable from zero; we
`
`therefore cannot reject, in a statistical sense, the possibility that the rule will not change the U.S.
`
`smoking rate. Therefore, the appropriate lower bound on benefits is zero.” Id. at 36,776.
`
`D. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA
`51.
`
`A federal district court enjoined the 2011 Rule before it went into effect and, in 2012,
`
`the D.C. Circuit held that it violated the First Amendment. See R.J. Reynolds, 696 F.3d 1205.
`
`52.
`
`The court began by analyzing whether the 2011 Rule was subject to the standard of
`
`scrutiny set forth in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), which holds that “purely
`
`factual and uncontroversial disclosures are permissible if they are reasonably related to the State’s
`
`interest in preventing deception of consumers, provided the requirements are not unjustified or unduly
`
`burdensome.” R.J. Reynolds, 696 F.3d at 1212 (quotation marks omitted). The court held that the
`
`Zauderer standard did not apply for three reasons.
`
`– 13 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 15 of 52 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`53.
`
`First, the graphic warnings were not “reasonably related to the State’s interest in
`
`preventing deception of consumers.” The court explained that the Tobacco Control Act already
`
`prohibited misleading statements on cigarette packages and advertising. Id. at 1214. In addition, neither
`
`Congress nor FDA had found that graphic warnings were necessary to prevent consumers from being
`
`deceived. Id. at 1214–15.2
`
`54.
`
`Second, the graphic warnings were not “purely factual.” As “FDA tacitly admit[ted],”
`
`the warnings were “primarily intended to evoke an emotional response, or, at most, shock the viewer
`
`into retaining the information in the text warning.” Id. at 1216. Because the warnings were “unabashed
`
`attempts to evoke emotion (and perhaps embarrassment) and browbeat consumers into quitting,” the
`
`court had no trouble concluding that they were not purely factual. Id. at 1217.
`
`55.
`
`Third, the warnings were not “uncontroversial.” On the contrary, “many of the images
`
`chosen by FDA could be misinterpreted by consumers.” Id. at 1216.
`
`56.
`
`Having held Zauderer inapplicable, the court then turned to analyzing whether the 2011
`
`Rule satisfied the standard of scrutiny set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service
`
`Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), which governs certain restrictions on commercial speech. Under the
`
`Central Hudson standard, the government had the burden to prove (among other things) that it had a
`
`“substantial” interest and that the 2011 Rule “directly advances” that interest. Id. at 1217 (quotation
`
`marks omitted). But FDA had utterly failed to meet its burden.
`
`57.
`
`The court first held that the 2011 Rule would not advance the government’s interest
`
`in reducing smoking. As the court explained, “FDA has not provided a shred of evidence—much less
`
`
`2 The D.C. Circuit later held that, under Zauderer, a compelled disclosure need not be
`reasonably related to preventing consumer deception. Am. Meat Inst., 760 F.3d at 31. But this Circuit
`has taken the opposite view, noting that Zauderer applies to compelled disclosures that are “directed at
`deceptive or misleading commercial speech.” Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Robin Singh Educ. Servs.,
`Inc., 799 F.3d 437, 453 (5th Cir. 2015), modified on other grounds, No. 13-20250, 2015 WL 13768849 (5th
`Cir. Oct. 22, 2015).
`
`– 14 –
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00176-JCB Document 1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 16 of 52 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`the ‘substantial evidence’ required by the APA—showing that the graphic warnings will ‘directly
`
`advance’ its interest in reducing the number of Americans who smoke.” Id. at 1219.
`
`58.
`
`The court then rejected FDA’s argument that the government had a substantial
`
`interest in “effectively communicating health information regarding the negative effects of cigarettes.”
`
`Id. at 1221 (quotation marks omitted). As “FDA concede[d], this purported ‘interest’ describes only
`
`the means by which FDA is attempting to reduce smoking rates.” Id. at 1221. This “purely
`
`informational” interest was therefore “too vague to stand on its own” and was “not an independent
`
`interest capable of sustaining the Rule.” Id.
`
`59.
`
`Because the 2011 Rule failed to satisfy either Zauderer or Central Hudson, the court
`
`vacated it and remanded to FDA. Id. at 1222.
`
`E.
`60.
`
`FDA’s New Proposed Rule
`
`On August 16, 2019—almost seven years after the D.C. Circuit vacated the 2011
`
`Rule—FDA issued a proposed rule that again implemented the Tobacco Control Act’s graphic-
`
`warnings requirement. Tobacco Products; Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements, 84 Fed.
`
`Reg. 42,754 (Aug. 16, 2019) (the “Proposed Rule”) (attached as Ex. 1). In the Proposed Rule, FDA
`
`abandoned its previously asserted interest of “reducing the number of Americans … who use
`
`cigarettes.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 36,629. Instead, FDA said that the Rule would “promote greater public
`
`understanding of the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 42,755. In
`
`particular, FDA said that it wanted to advance this interest by focusing on “less-known health
`
`consequences of smoking.” Id. at 42,757.
`
`61.
`
`The Proposed Rule deleted all but two of the textual warnings prescribed by the
`
`Tobacco Control Act, and added ten FDA-created textual warnings. Id. at 42,772–77. Thus, the
`
`Pr

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket