DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Supreme Court grants review of Sorrell v. IMS Health

Posted on January 7, 2011 by Dissent

SCOTUSblog reports that the Supreme Court granted review today in a case that asks whether states can enact laws to protect prescription data from commercial access:

The prescription records case, Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., et al. (10-779) is an appeal by Vermont state officials seeking to revive a state law that restricted commercial access to and uses of private medical data — here, information about brand-name drugs prescribed by doctors. The Second Circuit Court struck down that law under the First Amendment. There is now a conflict among lower courts on the issue, and both sides in the Vermont case joined in urging the Court to resolve the dispute.

Related documents (via SCOTUSblog):

Title: Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (Granted )
Docket: 10-779
Issue(s): Whether a law that restricts access to information in nonpublic prescription drug records and affords prescribers the right to consent before their identifying information in prescription drug records is sold or used in marketing violates the First Amendment.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

  • Opinion below (2d Cir.)
  • Petition for certiorari
  • Brief for respondents IMS Health Inc. et al.
  • Brief for respondent Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← AU: Transparency call on privacy: patient records
Ca: Woman awaits landmark ruling on sperm-donor identities →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Washington Post investigating cyberattack on journalists, WSJ reports
  • Resource: State Data Breach Notification Laws – June 2025
  • WestJet investigates cyberattack disrupting internal systems
  • Plastic surgeons often store nude photos of patients with their identity information. When would we call that “negligent?”
  • India: Servers of two city hospitals hacked; police register FIR
  • Ph: Coop Hospital confirms probe into reported cyberattack
  • Slapped wrists for Financial Conduct Authority staff who emailed work data home
  • School Districts Unaware BoardDocs Software Published Their Private Files
  • A guilty plea in the PowerSchool case still leaves unanswered questions
  • Brussels Parliament hit by cyber-attack

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Vermont signs Kids Code into law, faces legal challenges
  • Data Categories and Surveillance Pricing: Ferguson’s Nuanced Approach to Privacy Innovation
  • Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe
  • Would you — or wouldn’t you?
  • New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters
  • Synthetic Data and the Illusion of Privacy: Legal Risks of Using De-Identified AI Training Sets
  • States sue to block the sale of genetic data collected by DNA testing company 23andMe

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.