
In CASE 1.1Sorrell v.IMS Health Inc.,drug manufacturers challenged as unconstitutional a Vermont statute prohibiting pharmacies form selling prescriber-identifying information for marketing prescription drugs without the consent of prescribers.The U.S.Supreme Court ruled that:
A) although speech promoting marketing was not protected by the First Amendment, the law was unconstitutional based on the due process clause.
B) the statute regulated commercial speech which was evaluated under an "intermediate" standard and that the law was, therefore, constitutional.
C) the statute did not involve constitutional issues and was, therefore, a permissible type of regulation.
D) the conduct prohibited by the law was protected by the First Amendment and that the law was unconstitutional.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q43: Law is not just a static,external force
Q45: Discuss ways in which laws and regulations
Q53: Legally astute management teams typically wait until
Q54: According to Exhibit 1.2,which of the following
Q55: Which of the following was created by
Q56: The European Union's _ rules are _,so
Q58: Based on Exhibit 1.9,which of the following
Q59: The _ approach to business and society
Q60: According to Exhibit 1.4,what are the four
Q61: How does U.S.business law provide worker protection?
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents