Tobacco.org

• Lawsuit over light cigarettes is allowed 

The state's highest court yesterday allowed potentially hundreds of thousands of smokers to mount a class-action lawsuit against Philip Morris Cos. Inc. contending that the cigarette maker duped them into believing that Marlboro Lights delivered lower tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes.

The class-action suit would represent anyone in the state who since 1994 bought Marlboro Lights, which Philip Morris says is the nation's most popular cigarette.

The 4-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court overturned a lower court's decision and set the stage for what could become only the second such suit in the nation against manufacturers of so-called light and low tar cigarettes to go to trial, according to specialists in tobacco litigation.

Jump to full article »

• Aspinall v. Philip Morris (SJC Opinion - Aug 13, 2004) 

MASSACHUSETTS' HIGH COURT ISSUES HISTORIC RULING CERTIFYING CONSUMER FRAUD CLASS ACTION AGAINST PHILIP MORRIS FOR MARLBORO "LIGHT" CIGARETTES 

Mark Gottlieb: . . . " . . . . The real battle in these cases is over the issue of class certification. The facts surrounding the deception are hardly in dispute and it is likely that the trial will result in a finding of damages that may reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more. It is important to remember that this case is not about sick smokers but rather about duped consumers who thought they were getting a lower tar and nicotine cigarette but were in fact getting a cigarette that was as dangerous and addictive, if not more so, than so-called 'full flavor' brands."

Edward L. Sweda, Jr. . . . , added: "Today's ruling is terrific news for the plaintiffs who have filed similar consumer fraud cases against the tobacco companies. While the tobacco industry and their friends on Wall Street may have been surprised by the SJC's decision, it is clear that, as the majority ruled, the '[trial] judge's conclusion that the plaintiffs' claim warrants certification as a consumer class action is amply supported by the record. We conclude that a class action is not only an appropriate method to resolve the plaintiffs' allegations, but, pragmatically, the only method whereby purchasers of Marlboro Lights in Massachusetts can seek redress for the alleged deception.' Today's decision properly focuses on the fraudulent and deceptive misconduct of Philip Morris, as the plaintiffs allege. This ruling will be very helpful to the attorneys representing the plaintiff class in the Price v. Philip Morris case in Illinois that resulted in a $10.1 billion judgment last year."

Jump to full article »

Update 3: Court: Light Cigarette Suit Can Proceed 

Smokers of so-called light cigarettes can pursue a class-action lawsuit against Philip Morris USA based on the claim that the tobacco giant advertised Marlboro Lights as less harmful than other brands, Massachusetts' highest court ruled Friday.

The Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 decision marks the first time any state's high court has allowed smokers to proceed with a class action against the industry over the marketing of light cigarettes. Class-action status means anyone with a similar complaint against Philip Morris can join the suit and could be included in any monetary judgment against the company.

It is "the most important decision in tobacco litigation in many a year" because 90 percent of the cigarettes sold in the country are marketed as "light," said Steve Sheller, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs who is also pursuing other similar class-action lawsuits.

Jump to full article »

Philip Morris denies deceptive conduct 

The state's highest court ruled yesterday that smokers of so-called "light" cigarettes can pursue a class-action lawsuit against Philip Morris USA, based on the smokers' claim that the tobacco giant advertised Marlboro Lights as less harmful than other brands.

The Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 decision marks the first time any state's high court has allowed smokers to go forward with a class action against the industry over the marketing of light cigarettes. Class-action status means smokers with similar complaints against Philip Morris can join the suit and potentially be included in a monetary judgment against the company.

Steve Sheller, a lawyer in the case who is also pursuing similar class-action lawsuits across the country, called the SJC ruling "the most important decision in tobacco litigation in many a year" because 90 percent of cigarettes sold in the country are marketed as "light." . . .

While the SJC ruling will only directly affect the lawsuit by Massachusetts smokers who sued Philip Morris, it will likely influence courts in other states that have not yet decided the issue of class certification, Gottlieb said.

"This is a pivotal decision," he said. "Had it gone the other way, I think it would similarly have been quite influential."

Philip Morris argued that proof of damage was needed for each individual smoker, but the court rejected that argument, saying it would "eviscerate (the state's consumer protection law) as a remedy to abate this deceptive advertising."

Jump to full article »

• UPDATE 1-Mass. group of smokers recertified as a class 

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on Friday said a group of smokers who bought Marlboro Lights cigarettes in the state could sue as a class.

Last year, a justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court decertified the "lights" class action known as Aspinall, which alleged Philip Morris USA marketed its Marlboro Lights as safer than regular cigarettes.

"The judge's conclusion that the plaintiffs' claim warrants certification as a consumer class action is amply supported by the record," the ruling read, referring to an earlier ruling from a Superior Court, which had certified the class action.

Philip Morris USA is part of New York-based Altria Group Inc. MO.N , whose shares fell 90 cents, or 1.9 percent, to $46.48. Other tobacco-related shares were also lower. . . .

"We view this as a modestly negative development for the cigarette companies, since it is now likely that the case will need to go to trial," said Goldman Sachs analyst Judy Hong, who has an "in-line" rating on Altria and a "neutral" rating on the tobacco sector.

"The latest development is also consistent with our view that these 'lights' class action cases are unlikely to go away as quickly and as decisively as some market participants believe," Hong said.

Jump to full article »

Mass. group of smokers recertified as a class 

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on Friday said a group of smokers who bought Marlboro Lights cigarettes in the state could sue as a class.

Last year, a justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court decertified a "lights" class action known as Aspinall, which alleged Philip Morris USA marketed its Marlboro Lights as safer than regular cigarettes.

"The judge's conclusion that the plaintiffs' claim warrants certification as a consumer class action is amply supported by the record," the ruling read, referring to an earlier ruling from a Superior Court.

Jump to full article »

• Court: Light Cigarette Suit Can Proceed 

Smokers who puffed on light and low-tar cigarettes can sue tobacco companies as a group on their claim that cigarette makers misled consumers into thinking such brands were less harmful than others, the Massachusetts high court ruled Friday. . . .

The decision overturns a lower court ruling that had decertified class-action status for a Massachusetts lawsuit filed against Philip Morris in 1998. Lori Aspinall, of Boston, and Thomas Geanacopoulos, of Ashburnham claimed the nation's biggest tobacco retailer deceived smokers into thinking Marlboro Lights were better for them than regular Marlboros. . . .

The case represents the latest front in the legal battle against the tobacco industry. Similar lawsuits have been filed in at least 11 other states.

Jump to full article »

`Light' Cigarettes Pondered Source: Richmond Times - Dispatch 

Massachusetts' highest court considered yesterday whether to give class-action status to a suit that claims Philip Morris deliberately misled smokers by claiming "light" cigarettes are safer.

An appeals court judge derailed the class-action suit against the Richmond, Va., company, ruling the plaintiffs did not have enough in common to join in the suit. That ruling was appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments yesterday, not on the merits of the case but on the narrower question of whether it should be allowed to proceed as a class action.

The suit was filed in 1998 by Lori Aspinall, of Boston, and Thomas Geanacopoulos, of Ashburnham, who said Philip Morris deceived smokers into thinking Marlboro Lights were better for them than regular Marlboro cigarettes because they contain less tar and nicotine.

Jump to full article »

SJC considers suit on so-called light cigarettes 

The state's highest court will consider whether the nation's biggest cigarette retailer deliberately misled smokers by claiming so-called ``light'' cigarettes are safer than regular cigarettes because they contain less tar and nicotine.

An appeals court judge derailed the class-action suit against Philip Morris Companies Inc., ruling the plaintiffs did not have enough in common to join in the suit. That ruling was appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which was scheduled to hear arguments on Monday.

Jump to full article »

• Suit on light and low-tar cigarettes heads to SJC 

Massachusetts, which has often been in the vanguard of legal challenges to the tobacco industry, will be so again today when the state's highest court considers whether the nation's biggest seller of cigarettes duped smokers into believing that "light" and "low tar" brands were safer than regular cigarettes.

In a case closely watched by antismoking activists and tobacco manufacturers across the country, the Supreme Judicial Court will hear arguments about whether an appellate judge overstepped her bounds by derailing a class-action suit against Philip Morris Companies Inc.

Jump to full article »

LORI ASPINALL & another vs. PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES, INC. & another 

03/11/2004 #15 ORDERED for argument on April 5. Notice sent.

Jump to full article »