Plain tobacco packaging Court ruled in favour of the Australian government. British American Tobacco placed freedom of information requests on a Cancer Institute NSW research survey of school students aged between 12-17, which asked how they react to plain packaging, where they get cigarettes from and what age they started smoking. The Cancer Council Victoria fought the FOI request, saying that the tobacco company wanted to use the survey information to change their marketing to children to increase cigarette smoking among youth. Phillip Morris was ordered to pay the Australian government's legal fees. A FOI request by Nick Xenophon and Rex Patrick revealed
Tobacco packaging warning messages anti-smoking campaigns by placing the new warnings on packaging violates the companies' free speech rights. Additionally, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, Commonwealth Brands Inc., Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc. claimed that the graphic labels are an unconstitutional way of forcing tobacco companies to engage in anti-smoking advocacy on the government's behalf. A First Amendment lawyer, Floyd Abrams, represented the tobacco companies in the case, contending that requiring graphic warning labels on a lawful product cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. The Association of National Advertisers and the American Advertising Federation also filed a brief in the suit, arguing that