Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

Pfizer Asks Supreme Court To Protect “Right Of Reply” In Cases Like ALLHAT

Executive Summary

The ALLHAT study report illustrates why manufacturers need a clearly articulated "right of reply" under the First Amendment, Pfizer told the Supreme Court in an amicus curiae brief filed in support of Nike's appeal of Kasky v. Nike

You may also be interested in...



Pfizer’s “right of reply”

Supreme Court dismisses Nike v. Kasky as "improvidently granted," in which Pfizer argued manufacturers need a First Amendment-protected "right of reply" when their products are criticized. In one of 31 amicus briefs filed in the case stemming from California's unfair competition and false advertising laws, Pfizer proposed a three-part test for determining when a company's right to reply is protected (1"The Pink Sheet" March 10, 2003, p. 29). High court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear Nike's appeal and said further proceedings were necessary in the state court...

Pfizer’s “right of reply”

Supreme Court dismisses Nike v. Kasky as "improvidently granted," in which Pfizer argued manufacturers need a First Amendment-protected "right of reply" when their products are criticized. In one of 31 amicus briefs filed in the case stemming from California's unfair competition and false advertising laws, Pfizer proposed a three-part test for determining when a company's right to reply is protected (1"The Pink Sheet" March 10, 2003, p. 29). High court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear Nike's appeal and said further proceedings were necessary in the state court...

Pfizer “Right-Of-Reply” Theory Reflects Interest From FDA, Firm Says

Pfizer's amicus curiae brief articulating a "right-of-reply" for manufacturers reflects FDA's interest in the topic, Pfizer Senior Corporate Counsel Arnold Friede told an Institute for International Research conference on off-label use March 28 in Washington, D.C

Related Content

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS041404

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel