Home » Issues » Prescription Drug Data Mining
Litigation Involving Vermont’s Prescription Drug Data Mining Law
On February 22, 2011, the Attorney General filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a Vermont law that allows doctors to block use of their prescribing information, mined from pharmacy records, for marketing purposes. Data miners and the pharmaceutical industry claim the law violates their First Amendment rights. The U.S. Government, 35 states, and numerous medical, consumer, and privacy groups filed briefs in support of Vermont. The case will be argued April 26, 2011.
Sorrell et al. v. IMS et al.
Brief of Petitioners Sorrell et al.
Joint Appendix Volume 1
Joint Appendix Volume 2
Brief of Respondents IMS et al.
Brief of Respondent PhRMA
Reply Brief of Petitioners Sorrell et al.
Briefs of Amici Curiae In Support of Vermont:
35 States and the District of Columbia
AARP and the National Association of Prescription Drug Prices
AFSCME District Council 37 Health and Security Plan, Health Care for All, and Community Catalyst
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
New England Journal of Medicine, Massachusetts Medical Society, National Physicians Alliance, and American Medical Student Association
Public Citizen, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumer Action, Public Good, U.S. PIRG, and New Hampshire PIRG
Vermont Medical Society, New Hampshire Medical Society, Maine Medical Association, Medical Association of Georgia, American Academy of Family Practitioners, and American Academy of Pediatrics
Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, Public Health Law & Policy, Berkeley Media Studies Group, Public Health Law Center, Center for Digital Democracy, and Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood
Briefs of Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents IMS et al. & PhRMA:
Academic Research Scientists
American Business Media; the Coalition for Healthcare Communication; the Consumer Data Industry Association; CoreLogic; the National Association of Professional Background Screeners; and Reed Elsevier Inc.
Association of Clinical Research Organizations
Association of National Advertisers, Inc., American Advertising Federation, and American Association of Advertising Agencies
Bloomberg L.P., the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Hearst Corporation, ProPublica, the Associated Press, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Texas Tribune
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
Council of American Survey Research Organizations, Inc.
Dr. Khaled El Emam and Jane Yakowitz, Esq.
Genetic Alliance and the National Organization For Rare Disorders
Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Tommy G. Thompson, and the Healthcare Leadership Council
Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIOCOM, BioForward, BioNJ, Colorado Bioscience Association, Connecticut United For Research Excellence, Inc., Illinois Biotechnology Industry Organization, Iowa Biotechnology Association, Kansas Bioscience Organization, LifeScience Alley, Michigan Biosciences Industry Association, Pennsylvania Bio, South Dakota Biotechnology Association, Texas Healthcare and Bioscience Institute, Washington Biotechnology & Biomedical Association
The National Association of Chain Drug Stores and American Society for Automation in Pharmacy
New England Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation and Cato Institute
Washington Legal Foundation and the National Association of Manufacturers