Analysis of British American Tobacco's questionable use of privilege and protected document claims at the Guildford Depository

Abstract

BackgroundTobacco companies have a documented history of attempting to hide information from public scrutiny, including inappropriate privilege claims. The 1998 Minnesota Consent Judgement created two depositories to provide public access to discovered documents. Users raised concerns about the access conditions and ongoing integrity of the Guildford Depository collection operated until 2015 by British American Tobacco (BAT).MethodsA metadata search of the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library identified inconsistent privilege claims, and duplicates of documents withheld by BAT from public visitors. A review of the validity of claims, for documents obtained through these searches, was conducted against recognised legal definitions of privilege.FindingsBAT has asserted inappropriate privilege claims over 49% of the documents reviewed (n=63). The quantity of such claims and consistency of the stated rationale for the privilege claims suggest a concerted effort rather than human error.ConclusionsThere was insufficient attention given to the operation of the Guildford Depository by the original plaintiffs, including to the subsequent use of privilege claims. Appropriate access to these documents, commensurate with the terms of legal settlements creating the collection, was critical given their public interest value for enhancing understanding of industry strategies and activities, informing of policy interventions, and for holding the industry to account. Future legal settlements should prevent defendants from subsequently withholding disclosed documents, aside from those legitimately privileged, from public view. Control of publicly disclosed documents should not be placed back into the hands of defendant tobacco companies. Plaintiffs also need to invest adequate resources into policing claims of legal privilege.

Tobacco Industry Promotions and Pricing After Tax Increases: An Analysis of Internal Industry Documents

“…Some potentially relevant documents were marked as confidential or privileged communication; tobacco companies use these claims as a strategy to avoid making internal documents public. 103,104 While our findings suggest that tobacco companies deliberately target promotions and price changes to limit the effect of taxes on tobacco use, this is not necessarily the case for every promotion or pricing change after a tax increase. There is limited research on the distribution of promotions and changes in pricing before and after tax increases; future studies that track and archive these data would be useful to both regulators and researchers.…”

Marketing with tobacco pack onserts: a qualitative analysis of tobacco industry documents

“…Some potentially relevant documents were marked as confidential or privileged communication; tobacco companies use these claims as a strategy to avoid making internal documents public. 110111 While our findings suggest that different tobacco companies may prefer to use onserts for different purposes (eg, marketing, public relations, customer research) we cannot verify that this is the case. There is little research on the extent of current onserts use; future studies that track and archive changes in product packaging could be useful to regulators and researchers.…”

Tobacco manufacturer lobbying to undercut minimum price laws: an analysis of internal industry documents

“…To address this, we sought to validate their claims about bills introduced and legislation enacted in external archives. Certain potentially relevant documents were marked as confidential or privileged communication, and so not public 149 150. Although our findings suggest that tobacco companies successfully lobbied multiple states to change their laws given the use of industry-generated language in proposed and enacted legislation, states may have enacted these changes for independent reasons.…”