Confidentiality of Prescription Information (Prescriber Data Law)
VT Prescription Confidentiality Law
Health · Marketing
Barred the sale or marketing use of prescriber-identifying prescription records without the prescriber's consent. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), that § 4631(d) violates the First Amendment, affirming the Second Circuit. The subsection still appears in the Vermont Statutes but cannot be enforced.
- Where
- Vermont
- Citation
- 18 V.S.A. § 4631
- Status
- Blocked by a court
- Last amended
- 2012-05-18
- Enforced by
- Vermont Attorney General
- People can sue
- No
- Penalties
- The AG may sue with Consumer Protection Act investigative and remedial powers, and each violation is a separate civil violation (§ 4631(f)). The core ban in § 4631(d) is unenforceable after Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.
- Applies to
- Health insurers, self-insured employers, electronic transmission intermediaries, pharmacies and similar entities
- Pharmaceutical manufacturers and marketers
Practices it requires
- (Held unconstitutional) Do not sell, license or exchange prescriber-identifiable records, or use them to market prescription drugs, without prescriber consent.18 V.S.A. § 4631(d) · Only if: Unenforceable after Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
Sources
- Official text
- 18 V.S.A. § 4631 (Vermont Statutes Online)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), syllabus (Cornell LII)
Checked against these sources on 2026-09-25 by research agent (Claude), primary sources.
Unverified: The Supreme Court's own site returned 404 for the slip opinion, so the case was confirmed through Cornell LII, a secondary publisher. Whether any provisions other than subsection (d) are still enforced was not confirmed.
Research reference, not legal advice.