Tobacco.org

• HOLMES v. PHILIP MORRIS 

The plaintiff, Connie J. Holmes, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant, Philip Morris USA Inc., violated the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act (“DCFA”), 6 Del. C. §§ 2511-2527, by using the descriptors “lights” and “lowered tar and nicotine” in the advertising and packaging of Marlboro Lights cigarettes. The defendant has moved for summary judgment. . . .

The defendant claims that the descriptors “light” and “lowered tar and nicotine” are short hand references which were based upon measurements produced by the Cambridge Filter Method (“FTC Method”).2 The defendant contends that the use of the descriptors was developed and encouraged by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). It further contends that the use of the descriptors is a merchandising practice which is exempt from the DCFA pursuant to 6 Del. C. § 2513(b)(2).3 . . .

I conclude that the factual findings recited in U.S. v. Philip Morris USA Inc.29 seem utterly in conflict with any contention that, as a matter of law, the defendant’s merchandising practice complied with a statute administered by the FTC.30 In addition, Good and Aspinall lead to the conclusion that there is at least a question of fact which precludes summary judgment for the defendant. . . .

I do, however, agree with the defendant that Good is not controlling, because it is a preemption case and did not consider the Delaware statute. Despite these distinguishing characteristics, the Supreme Court’s comments on the history of the interactions between the FTC and the cigarette industry, and the inferences drawn from that history, are relevant to the defendant’s motion.

Based on the foregoing, the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. . . .

Jump to full article »

• FTC Releases Reports on Cigarette and Smokeless Tobacco Sales and Marketing Expenditures 

The amount spent on cigarette advertising and promotion by the five largest cigarette companies in the United States declined from $13.11 billion in 2005 to $12.49 billion in 2006, according to a report released today by the Federal Trade Commission. The largest spending category - spending on price discounts - fell from $9.78 billion in 2005 to $9.21 billion in 2006, but still accounted for nearly 74 percent of all marketing expenditures.

The number of cigarettes sold by those manufacturers to wholesalers and retailers declined from 2005 to 2006, while the number given away increased. Overall, the total number of cigarettes sold and given away declined from 354.6 billion in 2005 to 350.6 billion in 2006. A separate report on smokeless tobacco found that spending on advertising and promotion rose from $250.79 million in 2005 to $354.12 million in 2006. The dollar value of sales by the five largest manufacturers declined from $2.61 billion to $2.59 billion, and the number of pounds of smokeless tobacco sold declined from 116.2 million pounds to 115.82 million pounds.

Jump to full article »

FTC Report Shows Declines In Cigarette Sales, Promotion 

A Federal Trade Commission report released Wednesday shows relatively slender declines in cigarette sales, advertising and promotion.

However, a separate FTC report shows that spending on smokeless tobacco, also referred to as chewing tobacco, advertising and promotion rose from $250.79 million in 2005 to $354.12 million in 2006.

Jump to full article »

In the Matter of Sante Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. 

The Federal Trade Commission has conducted an investigation of certain acts and practices of Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., a corporation ("proposed respondent"). Proposed respondent is willing to enter into an agreement containing a consent order resolving the allegations contained in the attached draft complaint. Therefore, . . .

IT IS ORDERED that respondent, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, in connection with the advertising, promotion, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of Natural American Spirit tobacco cigarettes or any other tobacco product in or affecting commerce, shall display in advertisements as specified below, clearly and prominently, the following disclosures (including the line breaks, punctuation, bold font and capitalization illustrated):

In cigarette advertisements:

No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.

In advertisements for any other tobacco product:

No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean safer.

These disclosures shall be displayed beginning no later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of this order, in any advertisement that, through the use of such phrases as "no additives," "no chemicals," "additive-free," "chemical-free," "chemical-additive-free," "100% tobacco," "pure tobacco," or substantially similar terms, represents that a tobacco product has no additives or chemicals.

Provided, that the above disclosures shall not be required in any cigarette advertisement that is not required to bear a health warning pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1333.

Provided further, that the above disclosures shall not be required if respondent possesses and relies upon competent and reliable scientific evidence demonstrating that such cigarette or other tobacco product poses materially lower health risks than other cigarettes or other products of the same type.

Jump to full article »

PHILIP MORRIS USA STUDYING FTC'S RESCISSION OF GUIDANCE CONCERNING THE CAMBRIDGE FILTER METHOD 

Philip Morris USA is studying the FTC's rescission of guidance concerning the Cambridge Filter Method.� Philip Morris USA has worked with the FTC on this topic for many years and remains committed to working with the FTC and other federal authorities to identify and adopt a standardized testing methodology that improves on the Cambridge Method.

Jump to full article »

BERMAN: Good and the Legal Future of 'Light' Cigarettes  

JURIST Guest Columnist Micah Berman of New England School of Law says that by bringing attention to the issue of “light” and “low tar” cigarettes, the US Supreme Court's ruling in Altria v. Good may prompt state attorneys general to finally force an end to this long-running public health deception...

There are two other potential, but less promising ways in which this issue could be addressed. First, a federal government lawsuit against the tobacco industry resulted in a 2006 decision by D.C. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ordering the tobacco companies to stop labeling their products as “light” and “low tar.” It is possible that the D.C. Circuit Court will uphold Judge Kessler’s order (it was stayed on appeal), but most observers suspect it will not. Second, there is pending legislation in Congress that would prohibit the use of the terms “light” and “low tar.” The prospects of such legislation may have increased with the recent election, but it faces strong opposition from tobacco-state senators and is unlikely to be high to Congress’s long to-do list.

By itself, the decision in Good may do little to restrain the tobacco industry’s deceptive marketing practices. But by bringing attention to the issue of “light” and “low tar” cigarettes, it may prompt the state AGs to finally force an end to this long-running deception. It is up to the states, but there may well be a litigation strategy that can put out the “lights.”

Jump to full article »

United States Supreme Court Rules That Tobacco Fraud Suit Filed by Mantese and Rossman, P.C. in Maine May Go Forward 

The Supreme Court ruled this morning that claims against Philip Morris for its deceptive marketing of "Lights" and "lowered tar and nicotine" cigarettes are not preempted. Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, held that claims filed in Maine seeking redress for the deceptive marketing of cigarettes bearing these labels were not preempted by federal statute or the actions of the Federal Trade Commission. The suit, filed on behalf of all Maine consumers by the law firm of Mantese and Rossman, P.C., of Troy, Michigan, will now proceed in the Maine District Court.

Gerard Mantese, counsel for the plaintiffs in the suit, stated, "We are pleased that the United States Supreme Court agreed that the tobacco companies are not immune from suit and can be held accountable, like everyone else, for consumer fraud."

Jump to full article »

Expert says industry manipulated light cigarette tests - KPCC News In Brief 

The cigarette industry is bracing itself for a wave of new lawsuits after Monday's Supreme Court ruling on so-called "light" cigarettes. The Court ruled that cigarette makers could be sued for allegedly deceptive advertising.

Dr. Stanton Glantz teaches medicine at UC San Francisco's Center for Tobacco Control. He told KPCC that the industry manipulated tests with smoking machines by punching tiny holes in the "light" cigarettes.

Dr. Stanton Glantz: "So that when the machines sucked air through the cigarette it would get diluted with room air, and so the amount of tar and nicotine that was delivered to the machines was reduced, knowing full well that when actual human smokers put the cigarettes in their mouths, they covered up these microscopic holes with their lips, and so got much higher actual doses of tar and nicotine."

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Up in smoke 

The ruling this week instead rightly tossed out the claim that the federal warning label on cigarettes somehow disqualifies anyone from applying state laws pertaining to deceptive advertising and marketing practices.

If the tobacco and other companies are taken aback, they have reason to be. The ruling denies them the automatic protective cover they seek. It establishes the fair requirement that the companies defend their practices where they do business.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: A remedy when the feds fail 

the government clearly has failed when it comes to calling Big Tobacco on its advertising lies. . . .

It remains to be seen whether the Maine suit or any others will prevail. It is clear, however, that if the federal government cannot or will not step in to protect consumers, it should at least get out of the way when people look for remedies in state court.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Holding tobacco companies accountable  

Tobacco companies wanted smokers to believe that light cigarettes were safer. Internal industry documents described light cigarettes as "an effective marketing gimmick" that offered addicted smokers "the image of health reassurance."

After the Surgeon General's 1964 report on smoking and health -- and especially after warnings were added to cigarette packages -- tobacco company researchers devoted great amounts of time and money trying to understand light cigarettes' appeal. Their conclusion: People who bought them want "nothing less than to be conned," the documents said.

Tobacco companies obliged them. They continued advertising the unique qualities of light cigarettes, even after agreeing in 1998 to stop misrepresenting the health effects of their products. . . .

Indeed, the companies turned the restrictions to their advantage.

When people sued for injuries caused by smoking, tobacco companies argued that warning labels absolved them of responsibility. . . .

Tobacco companies have good lawyers, lots of cash and plenty of avenues for appeal if they lose. Even so, they are a step closer to finally having to answer in court.

And after millions of lives ruined and billions in medical costs, they have a lot to answer for.

Jump to full article »

High Court OKs 'Light' Cigarette Suits  

The court's opinion could be significant for the municipal market because tobacco manufacturers signed the Master Settlement Agreement with 46 states and six territories in 1998, agreeing to pay billions of dollars to them over a 25-year period, and muni issuers have sold tobacco bonds securitized by those annual payments.

The first debt - $709 million of tobacco bonds- was sold by New York City's TSASC Inc. in 1999.

In 2003, an Illinois judge ordered Altria to pay $10.1 billion in damages in a class action suit over light cigarettes. Tobacco bond credit downgrades followed soon after the decision.

Tobacco bond issuance slowed to a halt in 2004 because of litigation against cigarette companies. The companies withheld $755 million of annual settlement payments in 2006 during disputes over prior-year payment adjustments. They withheld another $696 million during a dispute over annual payments in 2004, which they said were unfairly inflated. The bonds regained strength in the market by the first quarter of 2007, representing 7.7% of all munis sold during the quarter.

Jump to full article »

Smokers gain high court win in labeling case  

In a case that originated in Bangor, Maine, the Supreme Court on Monday handed a surprising defeat to tobacco companies counting on it to put an end to lawsuits alleging deceptive marketing of “light” cigarettes. . . .

The case will be returned to federal court in Bangor after the first of the year, Lanham said Monday. A trial date is not expected to be set for several months. The first motion he expects to be filed will be to certify the case a class-action lawsuit.

“Companies that make products have a duty not to deceive the public,” Lanham said in a statement e-mailed to the Bangor Daily News. “Philip Morris deceived millions of consumers for more than 30 years in the deceptive advertising of Marlboro Lights cigarettes, including my three Maine clients.

“All we wanted from the outset was for our clients, and countless others like them, … to have their day in court, so a jury could say this is not the way we do business in Maine,” he continued. “Philip Morris pulled out all the legal stops — all the way to the highest court in our land — to block our clients’ access to justice. This decision allows us to pick up where we left off more than two years ago, pursuing claims for deception on their behalf under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. It is a good day in Maine and across the nation for consumer justice.”

Jump to full article »

Statement by Dr. Cheryl Healton, President and CEO, American Legacy Foundation® on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Altria Group v. Good  

Today's Supreme Court decision is an important step forward in a legal battle aimed at making sure Americans are told the truth about the devastating consequences of smoking. . . .

In a "friend of the court" brief, the American Legacy Foundation and other public health organizations educated the Court about the devastating health consequences of Philip Morris's fraudulent advertising practices. Since Philip Morris introduced Marlboro Lights in 1971, millions of people have switched to light cigarettes, including many who would have otherwise quit altogether. In fact, Marlboro Lights is now the best-selling brand in the nation. In Maine, where the lawsuit was brought, 1,900 children become new daily smokers every year. Nationally, of youth who are smokers, one in three will eventually die of a tobacco-related illness.

Today's decision follows on the heels of the Federal Trade Commission's recent rescission of its long-standing rule that enabled tobacco manufacturers to claim their "light" and "low-tar" labels were based on an FTC-approved testing method. The American Legacy Foundation urged the FTC to take the action to finally end the implied government endorsement of these misleading labels.

The truth is, light cigarettes can be just as harmful as regular cigarettes and the tobacco industry should no longer be permitted to mislead the American people into believing they are safe. Today's decision brings us one step closer to achieving this important public health goal.

Jump to full article »

• USSC cigarette ruling has secondhand results in W.Va. 

If tobacco companies deceived smokers of "light" and "low tar" cigarettes, smokers can sue them under state consumer laws, the U. S. Supreme Court decided on Dec. 15.

Five Justices agreed that federal labeling laws do not pre-empt suits in state courts alleging that tobacco companies violated a duty not to deceive smokers.

In West Virginia, the decision allows Circuit Judge Arthur Recht of Wheeling to lift a stay he imposed on all tobacco suits in West Virginia.

Recht, who handles tobacco litigation by appointment of the Supreme Court of Appeals, imposed the stay while awaiting the decision.

Jump to full article »