The article « Johnson & Johnson was asked to pay $72 million in Ivana Kottasova's talcum powder cancer case, and Dani Stewart focuses on the story of Jackie Fox, who died of ovarian cancer at the The late Jackie's family claimed that his premature death was the result of prolonged use of talcum powder, a product of the Johnson & Johnson company. The family claimed that the company knew about it. of the dangers and side effects associated with the use of this chemical, but it did not indicate this on the labels. However, scientists were divided on the carcinogenic potential of talcum powder. The court refused to rule. judgment to the defendant and awarded the plaintiff family $72 million. Steve's article "FDA Changes Course on Graphic Warning Labels for Cigarettes" presents a scenario in which a case brought in federal court by the American Cancer Society and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids was canceled. The question before the Federal Court was whether tobacco producers were supposed to adopt new warning labels or keep the old ones and advertise tobacco as they wished. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In their article, Ivana and Stewart (2016), focus on the need for correct warning labels. The issue brought before the court in the article was decided in favor of the plaintiff. That is, the defendant was found guilty of failing to label his product with warning labels. In the presence of such labels, consumers could have considered using another alternative product or abandoned the idea of ​​using it. Additionally, the accused could have had an easy time in court since he could have provided proof of the warning labels, thus proving his not guilty. In Steve's (2013) second article, the author argues that tobacco processors are fighting against the adoption of new warning labels. The new warning labels will pose a threat to the tobacco trade as they will scare off most consumers. The American Cancer Society, in conjunction with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, is fighting the use of old warning labels and advocating for the adoption of new warning labels. Freedom of expression is an essential and fundamental right, but it has limits. By exercising their freedom of expression in both sectors, talc and tobacco, processors have neglected the welfare of consumers by putting their lives at risk at the expense of their business. This should not be the case. Steve's article argues that the plaintiffs wanted the court to limit tobacco advertising. This aims to limit the freedom of expression of tobacco sellers and save the lives of children and adults. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Both articles discuss the government's ability to control and regulate corporate warning labels through the courts. The sections recognize the courts, government agencies, as the one responsible for determining whether or not a warning label is appropriate. It remained for the court to determine whether the talc producers were guilty of not..