Edited by Sudipta Rout and Sean Sudalaimani
Abstract
The clash between the powers of state regulation and freedom of speech in the era of data-driven commerce is highlighted in the case of Sorrell v. IMS Health. The question of a state’s authority to selectively restrict truthful commercial speech to further its own policy goals was raised by Vermont’s Prescription Confidentiality Law. This doctrinal defense examines the Supreme Court decision in Sorrell through the lens of the First Amendment, the four-pronged Central Hudson Test, concerns of privacy violations, and potential threats to professional autonomy. Ultimately, this article argues that the information used in the context of Sorrell was correctly decided as permissible and protected under the First Amendment, thereby clarifying the extent and circumstances under which commercial speech is protected. Moreover, Vermont’s law had failed to pass the Central Hudson Test and strict scrutiny review, underscoring that speaker-based and content-based discrimination is unauthorized. While concerns about health privacy and the preservation of professional autonomy are significant, they cannot justify content- or speaker-based restrictions on truthful commercial speech. Ultimately, this has also reinforced the distinct boundary between data privacy regulations and freedom of speech.
