That is a labeling requirement for health, not compelled commercial speech (which again, is about commerce :P). It does not require them to state anything about

That is a labeling requirement for health, not compelled commercial speech (which again, is about commerce :P). It does not require them to state anything about themselves, just about the risks of the ingredients in cigarettes. You need to understand these are all very different things in the eyes of the law Also note the A. current warning labels were litigated, and tobacco won at the district court level: http://www.news-record.com/content/2012/03/01/article/judge_blocks_graphic_images_on_cigarette_packages http://www.news-record.com/content/2012/03/01/article/judge_... This order was reversed by a divided panel on appeal: http://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/article_cb836c3c-ab6e-11e2-a089-001a4bcf6878.html http://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/artic... The supreme court declined to hear the case (which means nothing :P) B. Requiring phillip morris, et al to make ads stating they deceived the public was not okay. http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2015/05/22/263534.htm http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2015/05/22/263534... etc These are all very complex constitutional free speech issues, and trying to simplify them like you have with a throwaway line doesn't work well in practice.