Tobacco.org

• Local smokers’ lawyers fired up for 'light' cigarette fraud claims  

Michael Dahl has smoked two packs of Camel Lights every day for more than 20 years. David Scott Huber has smoked nearly a pack of Camel Lights, Winston Select or Winston Lights every day for the past 10 years. The two Minnesotans are now suing the cigarette manufacturer, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, on behalf of all people in the state who have smoked their “light” brands over the years.

The plaintiffs aren’t claiming that their health has suffered as a result of their tobacco use, but rather that they were deceived by the company’s advertising and marketing about the nature and effect of smoking “light” cigarettes.

The case stalled for a while due to a split in the U.S. circuit courts over whether the claims were pre-empted. But the decision from the U.S. Supreme Court last month in Altria Group Inc. v. Good that state law fraud claims relating to cigarette packaging and marketing are not pre-empted by federal law has allowed Dahl, Huber and many other plaintiffs to begin moving forward again.

Minneapolis attorney Gale Pearson, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said it’s important the tobacco companies don’t get away with deceiving customers into thinking light cigarettes are better for them than regular cigarettes.

Jump to full article »

Smokers' suit wins appeal 

The state Court of Appeals on Tuesday breathed new life into a lawsuit brought by two smokers against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., ruling that companies that make "light" or "low-tar" cigarettes can be sued for fraud under Minnesota law.

A lower court had agreed with the cigarette maker that federal law preempted such lawsuits.

Kay Nord Hunt, an attorney with Minneapolis-based Lommen Abdo Cole King & Stageberg, who represents the smokers, said the ruling was "very significant, because under the district court's ruling, essentially the tobacco industry is given license to lie."

Jump to full article »

• Appeals Court clears way for smokers' light claims 

Smokers of Camel Lights and Winston Lights should get a chance to argue their fraud case against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in Hennepin County District Court, a three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in a decision that also creates an opening for two similar cases against cigarette manufacturers.

The court determined the claims were based on a broad, general duty not to deceive and were not preempted by federal law.

Although the decision comes from the case against R.J. Reynolds, it affects two other cases pending in Hennepin County against other manufacturers of light cigarettes: Philip Morris and Brown & Williamson.

Camel Lights smokers challenged the dismissal of their case by now-retired Hennepin County District Judge Diana Eagon, who barred the claim based on federal law. The smokers argued on appeal that the claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or the Federal Trade Commission's oversight of tar and nicotine claims in cigarette advertising. . . .

Edward L. Sweda Jr., senior attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project, a division of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, based at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, called the ruling "extremely encouraging." The decision will be cited in the other pending cases, he said.

David Howard, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds, told the Associated Press the company plans to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision.

Jump to full article »

• Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., A05-1359 

D E C I S I O N

Under Cipollone, we conclude that appellants' claims are not predicated on a duty "based on smoking and health," but rather on a broader, more general duty to not deceive. As such, we hold that appellants' claims are not expressly preempted by the FCLAA. Because the FTC has never issued a formal rule specifically defining the cigarette advertising practices that violate the FTC Act, or established a clear federal policy on low-tar claims, we conclude that appellants' claims are not implicitly preempted by FTC oversight of tar and nicotine claims in cigarette advertising.

Reversed and remanded.

Jump to full article »