Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
Jump to full article »
Today's ruling is narrow and merely determined whether the Watson case should be heard in federal court or state court. We have compelling defenses to the Watson claim that have been advanced in state courts.William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA vice president and associate general counsel, on the SCOTUS ruling.
Today's decision does not directly address the issue of whether (federal regulations on tobacco companies) prevents plaintiffs from suing under state consumer fraud laws.Philip Morris statement on the Supreme Court's Watson ruling.
We can find nothing that warrants treating the FTC/Philip Morris relationship as distinct from the usual regulator/regulated relationship.Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in the Watson decision.
A highly regulated firm cannot find a statutory basis for removal [to a federal court] in the fact of regulation alone. [What the FTC is doing] sounds to us like regulation, not delegation. US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in the SCOTUS opinion denying Philip Morris' attempt to move the Watson case to Federal Court.
For over 40 years the FTC has exercised unprecedented detailed and direct control over the measurement and disclosure of cigarettes' tar and nicotine yieldsPhilip Morris, in a legal brief filed in Arkansas' Watson suit, a "lights" class action which PM has successfully moved to a Federal court. The state is appealing to SCOTUS.
[Plaintiffs] also challenge Philip Morris's 'marketing and promoting' of low tar and nicotine cigarettes, its 'representations,' and its alleged deception of consumers. Thus, in part, their complaint challenges Philip Morris's advertising. It cannot seriously be argued that the FTC does not direct and control the advertising of cigarettes.Circuit Judge John R. Gibson of Kansas City, Mo., in Thursday's decision by an appellate panel to keep the Arkansas Watson case in Federal Court.