Sued But Refused to be Silenced by a Certification Body that favored a Tobacco-funded Campaign
After exposing a certification linked to a tobacco industry campaign, Dr. Manfred Neuberger faced legal demands from a third party. But the impact served the industry’s interests. Despite this, resisting overreach remains necessary to safeguard future whistleblowing.
Sued While Saving Lives: How Legal Pressure Shielded a Tobacco-Funded Campaign From Scrutiny
Dr. Manfred Neuberger is a physician and public health advocate in Austria. Through Ärzteinitiative, he advanced smoke-free laws and exposed industry greenwashing. From 1998 to 2021, Austria saw an estimated 1,231 lives* saved due to tobacco control efforts.
*Lives Saved Estimate: The estimate of lives saved is based on a comparison of Global Burden of Disease (GBD) data. The number was derived by comparing the number of deaths attributed to tobacco use as a risk factor in 1998 with those reported in 2021, as reported in the GBD dataset.
The Tactic: Legal Pressure from a Third-Party Certifier
After raising concerns about a certification linked to a tobacco-funded campaign, Dr. Manfred Neuberger received a legal warning from the certifying body. Though the threat did not come from the tobacco industry directly, it had the effect of discouraging public scrutiny.
The Incident: Legal Pressure Following Public Critique
In 2021, PMI Spain promoted La Graciosa as “smoke-free,” with TÜV Austria certifying the campaign . Ärzteinitiative published a report linking the certification to PMI’s interests. When Ärzteinitiative exposed this, TÜV issued legal demands for removal, retraction, and payment of €1,200.
The Response: Partial Compliance and Rejection of Restrictive Agreement
Dr. Manfred, on behalf of Ärzteinitiative, complied partially: they edited content and paid the fee, but refused a silence agreement* that would prevent future commentary about TÜV Austria.
* Based on documents in Dr. Manfred’s private archive (not independently verified by GGTC/author)
The Outcome: Intimidation Fails to Silence Future Advocacy
The legal threat succeeded in partially suppressing critique, but also drew attention to a third-party certification body’s efforts that benefited tobacco industry interests . Dr. Manfred's resistance to agree to a silence agreement effectively preserved the possibility for future advocacy.
Why It Matters
This case highlights how certification bodies can inadvertently protect industry messaging and raises concern about legal suppression of fact-based public health critique. It shows that resisting overreach safeguards future whistleblowing.
Disclaimer
This case study is based on publicly documented legal rulings, media reports, organizational statements, and other publicly available sources. It also relies on information provided by civil society actors who are not affiliated with the tobacco industry. All references to individuals and organizations are based on their publicly known affiliations and roles in documented proceedings. This may include accounts of alleged misconduct grounded in private documentation retained by individuals involved. All materials are presented as reported by the source and conveyed in the public interest. This is not intended as definitive legal conclusions but is shared for educational and advocacy purposes, in line with responsible reporting standards and applicable law.