Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Stolfi, 724 F.Supp.3d 1174

In 2018, Oregon passed HB 4005, a drug-pricing transparency law requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose detailed pricing and cost information to the state whenever drug prices exceeded certain thresholds or increased by 10%+ over a year.
The law mandates public disclosure of this data unless the information is a trade secret and public interest does not require disclosure (the "public-interest exception").
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) challenged HB 4005 on several constitutional grounds: Takings Clause, First Amendment, Commerce Clause, and Supremacy Clause.
Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The court held a hearing and issued oral rulings, with this opinion clarifying and formalizing those holdings.
As of May 2020, no trade secrets had been disclosed over objection, but over 4,865 trade secret claims had been made by manufacturers.
The remaining claims in the lawsuit—after amendments and stipulations—were limited to those addressed by the motions for summary judgment (Takings, First Amendment, Commerce Clause, and Supremacy Clause/preemption claims).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Takings Clause (Public-interest exception)	Compelled disclosure of trade secrets constitutes a regulatory taking.	Exception not yet invoked; procedural safeguards available.	For Plaintiff: Exception is an unconstitutional taking when invoked.
Supremacy Clause (Preemption by DTSA)	Exception is preempted by the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA); federal law prohibits state-mandated disclosures of trade secrets.	No direct conflict; DTSA preserves lawful state action and does not preempt reporting requirements.	For Defendant: Exception is not preempted; simultaneous compliance possible.
Commerce Clause	Reporting requirements tied to nationwide WAC directly regulate interstate commerce.	Law only impacts in-state activity; no discriminatory or extraterritorial effect shown.	Neither side: Factual disputes remain; no summary judgment granted.
First Amendment (Compelled disclosures)	Reporting requirements compel manufacturers to speak on controversial issues; violates First Amendment.	Disclosures are commercial speech and subject only to rational basis review.	For Plaintiff: Requirements unconstitutional under intermediate scrutiny.

Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) (found that compelled, voluntary disclosure of trade secrets to government may defeat takings claim based on investment-backed expectations)
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021) (physical takings can be challenged prior to actual taking if government decision is final)
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (sets out intermediate scrutiny for compelled commercial speech)
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (sets lower standard for compelled factual, uncontroversial commercial disclosures)
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (restricts compelled speech requirements under First Amendment)
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (speech protections against government compelled speech)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (association standing requirements)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing must be shown for each claim)