Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653

Vermont Act 80 § 4631(d) prohibits sale, disclosure, or use of prescriber-identifiable information for marketing absent prescriber consent.
Prescriber-identifying data are generated in prescription processing and sold to data miners who aid pharmaceutical marketing.
Petitioners (pharmaceutical manufacturers and data miners) allege the statute violates First Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment.
District Court found data are effective marketing tools; Second Circuit held § 4631(d) violates First Amendment by burdening speech.
The Court grants certiorari to resolve whether the statute is content- and speaker-based and whether it can survive heightened scrutiny.
Majority upholds the statute, applying heightened scrutiny to content- and speaker-based regulation of speech in the commercial context.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 4631(d) is content- and speaker-based regulation	Respondents argue it burdens marketing speech and targets speakers (pharma/marketers).	Vermont contends it is a neutral regulatory measure with privacy/public-health aims.	Yes, it is content- and speaker-based and subjected to heightened scrutiny
Whether heightened scrutiny applies to commercial regulation	Respondents urge ordinary commercial-regulation scrutiny suffices; heightened scrutiny unnecessary.	Vermont argues heightened scrutiny is warranted due to targeted, viewpoint-based burdens on speech.	Heightened scrutiny applies to the content- and speaker-based burden
Whether § 4631(d) directly advances substantial government interests	Respondents say the law is not necessary to protect physician privacy or public health.	Vermont asserts privacy, cost containment, and unbiased information objectives are advanced by the law.	The statute directly advances substantial interests in privacy and public health
Whether the statute is narrowly tailored (fit) to those interests	Respondents claim the law is overbroad and targets disfavored speech without neutral justification.	Vermont argues there are no equally effective, more limited restrictions; narrow exceptions exist.	The statute is tailored to achieve interests with a sufficient fit under heightened scrutiny

Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976) (commercial speech protections; unbiased information importance)
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (intermediate scrutiny for commercial speech; burden on truthful information)
United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (test for government regulation of conduct signaling expressive content)
R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (content-based regulation; strict scrutiny when targeting disfavored speech)
Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (1993) (value of in-person solicitation; commercial speech context)
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (content-based and viewpoint considerations in regulation; scope of scrutiny)