Case Study on Tobacco Regulation and False Advertising

Case Study Instructions:

PART ONE: Please read the article from the link, and please watch the two videos imbedded in the article. Then discuss the following questions. http://www(dot)msnbc(dot)msn(dot)com/id/44171861/ns/health-cancer/t/big-tobacco-sues-feds-over-graphic-warnings-cigarette-labels/ 1. In your reasoned opinion, do tobacco companies have an ethical obligation to put graphic warning labels on cigarette packages? Why or why not? 2. In your opinion, do the new graphic labeling requirements on cigarette packages represent reasonable government regulation (in terms of the right to regulate under the Commerce Clause)? Should the federal government impose a legal obligation on tobacco companies to put graphic warning labels on cigarette packages? Why or why not? In terms of strict government labeling requirements on cigarette packages, why the focus on the tobacco industry? Why not alcohol? Why not fast food? 3. Do you believe the federal court will uphold the graphic labeling requirements imposed by the Food and Drug Administration? Why or why not? Assess the tobacco industry's argument that the new graphic labeling requirements unfairly infringe upon the free speech rights of tobacco companies. PART TWO: Please watch the attached videos, and please read the associated article. Then discuss the following questions. http://www(dot)msnbc(dot)msn(dot)com/id/21134540/vp/44704873#44704873 http://www(dot)msnbc(dot)msn(dot)com/id/44701244/ns/health/t/reebok-settles-charges-over-toning-shoe-claims/#.TpRH95sr2so 1. In this case, does the “punishment fit the crime?” In other words, is the $25 million settlement amount appropriate in light of the specific alleged misrepresentations made by Reebok? Explain your response. 2. The video focuses on whether Reebok “lied” in terms of the health benefits of its shoes. To be responsible for false and deceptive advertising, does a seller have to lie? Explain your response. 3. In your reasoned opinion, is this case an example of overregulation by the federal government (more specifically, the Federal Trade Commission?) Explain your response in terms of enforcing strict “unfair and deceptive” advertising law.

Case Study Sample Content Preview:

Case Study on Tobacco Regulation and False Advertising
Name
Name of Institution
Name of Professor
Date
PART ONE
1
Tobacco companies do not have a moral obligation to put graphical warning labels on the cigarette packages of their products and neither should the government compel them to do so. This would be an infringement of the right to free speech of any business. One`s freedom of speech is infringed when one is coerced into expressing themselves in a manner that they do not want to.
2.
The new graphic label requirements on cigarette packages do not present a reasonable government regulation because in as much as Congress, under the Commerce Clause, retains the power to regulate some companies, this would be an infringement of individual liberties that gives a person the right to use a substance that may harm their bodies if they so wish in private.
Government should not be allowed to impose a legal obligation on tobacco companies to put graphic warning labels on cigarette packages because, as earlier noted, this is an infringement of civil liberties that give individual the right to do whatever they so wish in private as long whatever thy do does not harm anyone else. There shouldn`t be regulation on fast foods and alcohol either, because the same argument pitted against use of tobacco can be used to regulate fast food and alcohol which is wrong. A free society is a prosperous society, most people smoke or drink alcohol or eat fast food knowing very well of the impending consequences. We should focus more on better ways of ed...

Updated on January 26, 2024

Get the Whole Paper!

Not exactly what you need?

Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Order

Case Study on Tobacco Regulation and False Advertising

You Might Also Like Other Topics Related to fast food: