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