The court accepted that the government may require factually accurate health warnings, but the majority, in a split decision, said that it could not go as far as requiring images. In Australia, the issue was whether the law implied uncompensated expropriation – in this case, of the tobacco companies’ intellectual property in their brands.
美国的裁决基础是美国宪法对言论自由的保护。法庭接受政府可以要求标上真实、正确的健康警告，但（微弱）多数意见认为不能到要求印上图像的程度。在澳大利亚，问题在于该法是否隐含着无条件征用——在这个案例中，是烟草公司对自身商标的知识产权。最高法院的裁决是没有。