In 2007, the Prescription Confidentiality Law was passed in the state of Vermont. One of the key measures of the law stipulated that without a doctor's consent, any documents containing information about prescribing practices could not be sold or used for marketing. The law was in response to the practice of companies using doctors' personal prescribing histories without the doctor's knowledge. Subsequently, pharmaceutical and data companies argued that the law violated their First Amendment rights by restricting their speech without good reason. Are the companies right? How did the court decide? [Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011).]