15 U.S.C. § 1335
Unlawful advertisements on medium of electronic communication
After
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001).
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001). “352 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1335 . In the 1990's, cigar advertising campaigns triggered a boost in sales.”
Posadas De Puerto Rico Assocs. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 (1986). “But it is simply the demographics of the two newspapers' readerships, and not any form of "discrimination" on the part of the Puerto Rico Legislature or the Superior Court, which produces this result.”
United States v. Edge Broad. Co., 509 U.S. 418 (1993). “See 15 U. S. C. § 1335 . See also Queensgate Investment Co.”
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973). “582 (DC 1971), this Court summarily affirmed a district court decision sustaining the constitutionality of 15 U. S. C. § 1335 , which prohibits the electronic media from carrying cigarette advertisements.”
Capital Broad. Co. v. Mitchell, 333 F. Supp. 582 (D.D.C. 1971). “" [2] HEW, Report to Congress, 1968, FTC, Report to Congress, 1967, as reported in H.”
People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 124 P.3d 408 (Cal. 2005). “” ( 15 U.S.C. § 1335 .) At the same time, Congress expanded the scope of federal preemption by amending section 1334(b) in the federal act to provide: “No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or…”
In Re Tobacco Cases II, 163 P.3d 106 (Cal. 2007). “” ( 15 U.S.C. § 1335 ; see Lorillard, supra, 533 U.”
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Walter Jacobson & Cbs, Inc., 713 F.2d 262 (7th Cir. 1983). “But we doubt that a cigarette company could survive in the short run and thus be around to enjoy the long run if it flouted the *268 strong public policy against encouraging children to smoke, a policy expressed for example in the ban on cigarette television advertising in…”
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Philip Morris Inc., 199 F. Supp. 2d 362 (M.D.N.C. 2002). “Professor Hay attempts to demonstrate the extent of product differentiation in the retail cigarette market by pointing out the disparity in pricing between Marlboro (a premium brand) and Malibu (a deep-discount brand). Professor Hay claims that Marlboro's 44% higher price than…”
FDA v. Wages & White Lion Investments, LLC, 604 U.S. 542 (2025). “)); restrictions on the advertise- ment of certain tobacco products ( 15 U. S. C. §§1335 , 4402(a)(2), (f ) (2000 ed.”
Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger, 122 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 1997). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1335 . Relatedly, the 1969 Act replaced subsection (b) of the 1965 Act’s preemption provision with the following language, which remains unmodified to this day: (b) No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with…”
Dkt Mem'l Fund Ltd. v. Agency for Int'l Dev., Dkt Mem'l Fund Ltd. v. Agency for Int'l Dev., 887 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “2d 472 (1972) (upholding ban on telecommunications cigarette advertising mandated by 15 U.S.C. § 1335 , the same chapter which mandates Surgeon General warning against smoking).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.