Abstract

In recent years, there has been heightened concern regarding the marketing of potentially harmful products (PHPs) to disadvantaged markets. Three issues which commonly dominate discussions in this controversy are: (1) the potential for exploitation of vulnerable markets, (2) the tradeoff between protection of disadvantaged consumers and their rights to make informed choices and (3) the appropriateness of using the commercial speech doctrine to settle the issue of targeting minority markets with PHPs. This paper examines the arguments raised in this debate so that interested parties will better appreciate the ethical complexity of marketing PHPs to minority segments.