Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, et al. v. Ims Health Inc. et Al

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 7 Jan 2011

Prescription drug records, which contain information about patients, doctors, and medical treatment, exist because of federal and state regulation in this highly regulated field. This case is about information from prescription records known as "prescriber-identifiable data." Such data identifies the doctor or other prescriber, links the doctor to a particular prescription, and reveals other details about that prescription. Pharmacies sell this information to data mining companies, and the data miners aggregate and package the data for use as a marketing tool by pharmaceutical manufacturers. The law at issue in this case, Vermont's Prescription Confidentiality Law, affords prescribers the right to consent before information linking them to prescriptions for particular drugs can be sold or used for marketing. The Second Circuit held that Vermont's law violates the First Amendment, a holding that conflicts with two recent decisions of the First Circuit upholding similar laws. The question presented is: Whether a law that restricts access to information in nonpublic prescription drug records and affords prescribers the right to consent before their identifying information in prescription drug records is sold or used in marketing runs afoul of the First Amendment.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court case Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, et al. v. IMS Health Inc., et al., 2010 revolved around the issue of data mining in healthcare and its implications on free speech rights under the First Amendment. The state of Vermont had enacted a law prohibiting pharmacies from selling prescriber-identifiable data to pharmaceutical companies without the prescribing doctor's consent for marketing purposes - a practice known as "detailing". Pharmaceutical companies and data miners challenged this law arguing that it violated their First Amendment rights by restricting their access to information necessary for targeted advertising campaigns while allowing other entities unrestricted access to such information. In June 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of IMS Health Inc., stating that Vermont's law was unconstitutional because it imposed content-based and speaker-based restrictions on disseminating factual commercial information which could not withstand heightened judicial scrutiny.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., written by Justice Breyer and joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, argued that Vermont's law should be upheld as it was a legitimate effort to protect public health. They contended that the majority misapplied First Amendment principles in striking down the law, which they viewed as an economic regulation rather than a restriction on free speech. The dissenters believed that pharmaceutical companies' use of prescriber-identifying information could lead to higher drug costs and negatively impact public health. They also pointed out that this kind of data mining is not traditional journalistic activity deserving high-level First Amendment protection but commercial exploitation aimed at increasing sales for specific drugs.