On June 19, 2024, the Supreme Court will rule in a case challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) prohibition on celebrity endorsements of alcoholic beverages.
The manager of Reggie ‘N’ Bollie and Skrewfaze, Mark Darlington Osae, filed the lawsuit because he disagreed with the FDA’s instruction.
The court postponed making a decision on the case twice; the most recent delay occurred on May 8. Today, June 19, is the date the court will make a decision.
Before, the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) had issued a rule prohibiting celebrities from appearing in alcohol-related advertisements.
The FDA issued a guideline prohibiting the use of celebrities in alcohol-related advertisements with the intention of preventing youngsters from being influenced by celebrities to become alcoholics.
Mark Darlington Osae, the plaintiff in the case and manager of the hip-hop artists Reggie “N” Bollie and Skrewfaze, is requesting that the Supreme Court declare the FDA’s guideline unconstitutional on the grounds that it infringes upon the right to nondiscrimination, which is protected by Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.
Read also:“I am not married” – actress Vivian Jill speaks on circulating wedding photos, videos
Reliefs Sought:
(a) A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 17(1) and 17(2), which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination against persons on grounds of social or economic status, occupation, among others, Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on February 1, 2016, which provides that “No well-known personality or professional shall be used in alcoholic beverage advertising,” is discriminatory, inconsistent with, and in contravention of Articles 17(1) and 17(2) of the 1992 Constitution, and thus unconstitutional.
(b) A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 17(1) and 17(2), Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on February 1, 2016, which prohibits well-known personalities and professionals from advertising alcoholic products, is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 17(1) and 17(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination against persons on grounds of social or economic status, occupation, among others, and consequently null, void, and unenforceable.
(c) An order striking down Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on February 1, 2016, as being inconsistent with and in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution, and as such nullified.
(d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, or assigns under the pretext of acting under Guideline 3.2.10 of the Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods published by the 1st Defendant on February 1, 2016, from doing anything to prevent any well-known personality or professional from advertising alcoholic products.
SOURCE:3NEWS.COM
