Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
In 1998, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company was one of many that agreed to a settlement, essentially removing its creative marketing arm.
The idea was to stop companies from distributing promotional materials often aimed at kids.
But Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Santa Fe has been violating that agreement.
At issue - tin signs the company has been giving out featuring its "Natural American Spirit" cigarette brand.
“These promotional signs are both a symbol and a symptom of slick pitches that show the tobacco industry unrepentant, still relying on marketing tactics to sell death and addiction,” Blumenthal said. “This legal action demonstrates our undiminished determination to fight tobacco -- hopefully now a battle joined by a new president committed to public health.”
As a result, Connecticut is one of 41 states to reach a settlement with the company.
Santa Fe will stop handing out the signs and has also agreed to pay a $250 fine for each future violation. . . .
"This historic agreement bans slick signs and other pernicious promotions intended to make cigarettes seem cool," he said. "These merchants of death and disease depend on marketing to hook a new generation, enticing children and young adults with hip merchandise. Blocking distribution of signs, CDs, DVDS, clothing and other items hyping cigarettes is vital to reducing the appeal and incidence of smoking, especially among youth.”
Jump to full article »
Shell Oil Products U.S., a unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, agreed with the attorneys general of 46 states and the District of Columbia to help curb sales of tobacco products to minors at about 13,000 gas stations.
``By preventing a teen from smoking, we can protect the health of the next generation,'' Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said today in a statement. Under the agreement, Shell will pay the states $100,000 for costs incurred in their probe.
Motiva Enterprises LLC, a Houston-based oil refiner with operations in the southeastern U.S., also is joining the accord . . .
Under the accord, retail stores located at the stations will be required to tell the oil company if tobacco products are being sold to people who are too young to legally buy them. Employees will receive training on the health risks faced by underage smokers, and Shell will conduct periodic spot checks to ensure compliance, said Brown.
The four states that didn't participate in the settlement were Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota and Wisconsin.
ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp., 7-Eleven Inc. and Walgreen Co. are among other retailers that have joined
Shell Oil Products and its parent, Motiva Enterprises, are taking proactive steps in Illinois to reduce cigarette sales to minors at 14,000 independent retail outlets in the state.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said in a statement that Shell also agreed to pay $100,000 to cover costs incurred by the states’ investigation and negotiation.
To date, this marks the 12th agreement Madigan’s office signed with national retailers, including CVS, 7-Eleven, Wal-Mart and Walgreen’s stores, and gas stations and convenience stores operating under the Conoco, Phillips 66 or 76, Exxon, Mobil, BP and Amoco brand names, according to the statement. . . .
Madigan explained this agreement came as a result of an ongoing, multi-state enforcement effort. In total, the agreements cover more than 90,000 retail outlets across the nation.
The American Legacy Foundation(R) -- a national public health foundation dedicated to reducing tobacco use in the U.S. -- is proud to announce a new lecture series on tobacco policy and enforcement in honor of Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell. The series serves as an expression of gratitude for Sorrells six years of dedicated service and leadership on Legacys board of directors, and for his longtime work and commitment to reducing tobacco use in the U.S.
Through a $200,000 endowment to the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Mission Foundation, the new William H. Sorrell Lecture Series on Tobacco Policy and Enforcement will include an annual lecture by a nationally recognized expert in tobacco policy or enforcement during one of NAAGs three annual meetings. Tobacco control is a core issue NAAG members are engaged in, and the lecture series will ensure NAAG members hear firsthand regarding innovative research, key policy initiatives, or other issues in tobacco control from leading experts in the public health field. . . .
On behalf of our President, Attorney General Patrick Lynch, the National Association of Attorneys General is truly honored and grateful for the generosity of the American Legacy Foundation and its support of the work of Attorneys General in enforcing the provisions of the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement through the establishment of the William H. Sorrell Lecture series, NAAG Executive Director Jim McPherson said.
As the first gift of its kind in the history of our 100-year-old Association, this endowment will allow NAAG to continue to provide Attorneys General and their staffs with invaluable opportunities for intellectual debate, discussion and understanding of tobacco-related topics.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act expressly preempts state-law claims that a cigarette company violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act by falsely representing its “light” cigarettes to the public when the predicate state-law duty of such claims is the duty not to deceive.
2. Whether such claims are impliedly preempted where the FTC has never exercised its rulemaking power to address the conduct at issue nor defined the terms at issue in this dispute. . . .
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This case presents the questions whether the FCLAA or the actions of the FTC preempt state-law deception claims arising out of Petitioners’ practices with respect to “low tar and nicotine” and “light” cigarettes. Neither the FCLAA nor the actions of the FTC license Petitioners to deceive consumers in violation of state law. Immunizing Petitioners from the consequences of the alleged wrongful conduct is not a result that should be presumed without clear language and intent, neither of which is present here.
1. In Cipollone v. Liggett, 505 U.S. 504 (1992), the Court held that the FCLAA does not preempt claims resting upon false representation of a material fact or concealment of a material fact by tobacco companies where such claims are founded upon a general duty under state law not to deceive. The suit at issue here brings precisely such claims. It seeks economic, not personal injury, damages, under Maine’s general prohibition against any “material representation, omission, act or practice that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances.” Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 207 (Supp. 2007). Because the lawsuit before the Court is predicated upon a general statutory prohibition against deception (that the manufacturers made false statements and concealed information regarding “light” cigarettes), under Cipollone it is not preempted. To find otherwise would disrupt and do serious harm to the sovereigns’ complementary efforts to protect consumers, which would have adverse implications beyond the “light” cigarettes dispute before the Court here. State law suits pursuant to state unfair practices and consumer protection statutes combating deceptive practices are a critical complement to the administrative and prosecutorial efforts of the FTC. In fact, recognizing that it cannot combat consumer fraud on its own, FTC regulations direct the agency “to assist and cooperate” with state consumer protection efforts. One common outgrowth of that cooperation is that the FTC and the States often target the same wrongdoers, which sometimes results in separate settlements that provide different forms of relief. There is no exception in this complementary regulatory scheme for fraud or deception by cigarette manufacturers. Indeed, the FTC acknowledges the States’ vital part in prohibiting deception by tobacco companies.
2. Petitioners’ arguments that the FTC has somehow impliedly preempted the state-law claims are patently incorrect. Nothing in the text, structure, or regulatory history of the FTC Act or in the actions of the FTC relating to “light” cigarettes supports implied preemption. Petitioners are not claiming that the FTC Act itself imposes requirements on tobacco companies that conflict with state law. Nor could they, given that the FTC Act lacks an express preemption provision and instead contains a broad saving clause protecting state remedies and causes of action. In addition, Congress imposed heightened requirements for FTC rulemaking, and the FTC’s procedural rules require that it explain the impact of any of its rules on state law. And petitioners do not assert that the FTC has promulgated specific rules that preempt state-law actions with respect to “low tar” and “light” cigarettes. Rather, Petitioners’ implied preemption claim is based on their assertion that the FTC has blessed tobacco companies’ “light” cigarette advertisements through a history of less formal actions, such as consent decrees reached with individual companies. But neither the consent decrees nor the other actions relied upon by Petitioners mandated or approved Petitioners’ “light” and “low tar” advertisements. Moreover, in none of those actions did the FTC ever suggest that State consumer protection laws present an obstacle to, or are preempted by, some sort of FTC policy. Indeed, the FTC has eschewed any suggestion that its actions have resolved the issue of tobacco companies’ deceptive practices regarding “low tar” cigarettes. . . .
* * * The common purpose of the FTC Act and State unfair trade practices and consumer protection acts, such as Maine’s, is to protect consumers from deceptive practices. The FTC has been most sensitive to this relationship, as have the courts. Finding preemption here would run counter to how the FTC and the States have worked cooperatively together, and would do serious harm to that relationship and to the protections afforded consumers through their efforts. The particular claims of deception here fall squarely within those permitted under Cipollone, and the FTC has not established a cohesive policy impliedly preempting the States with respect to deceitful conduct by tobacco companies regarding “low tar” and “light” cigarettes. For these reasons, the Court should find that the state-law claims before it are not preempted.
So, there I was, waiting in line at the Sheetz store in Weston, West Virginia.
On the counter in front of me were about 50 of these little tins laid out on the counter.
They smell like mints.
They looked like mint containers.
And there was a sign next to them that said - free samples.
Young and old could take one.
And no one would object.
The cashier behind the counter looked like a teenager himself. . . .
The slip cover over the mint container says: Camel Snus Trial Offer.
In the container are little pouches of tobacco that you stick under you lip.
Camel Snus is a product of R.J. Reynolds.
And Reynolds is a party to the Master Settlement Agreement between the state Attorneys General and the tobacco companies.
That agreement includes a ban on free tobacco samples.
There is an exception to the ban on free samples, including "the conducting of consumer testing or evaluation of tobacco products with persons who certify that they are adults."
But that clearly wasn't going on at the Sheetz I was at.
The Camel Snus were on the counter. . . .
An attorney at the National Association of Attorneys General said that if Reynolds were giving Camel Snus to retailers as free samples to be handed out, "it would appear to violate the terms of the agreement."
And Eric Lindblom, director for policy research at Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids in Washington, D.C., said that it was clearly a violation of the agreement and did not fit within the consumer testing exception.
the November 15, 2007, issue of Rolling Stone magazine includes what appears to be a giant, nine-page ad for R.J. Reynolds’ Camel cigarettes that features a four-page cartoon foldout, despite a prohibition in the 1998 state tobacco settlement on the use of cartoons to market cigarettes. We urge state attorneys general to immediately investigate this ad as a possible violation of both the tobacco settlement’s prohibition on the use of cartoons and its prohibition on targeting youth in the marketing of tobacco products. It is difficult to see this nine-page spread as anything but an effort by R.J. Reynolds, aided and abetted by Rolling Stone, to push the legal limits and get around the tobacco settlement’s explicit ban on the use of cartoons to market cigarettes
Rolling Stone has told the media that the four-page cartoon foldout is “editorial content†produced by the magazine despite the fact it is surrounded by and indistinguishable from R.J. Reynolds’ Camel ad. This is a meaningless distinction to the magazine’s readers, including some 1.5 million youth, who will see the nine-page spread as one giant ad for Camel cigarettes (estimate on the number of youth readers, aged 12-17, comes from the magazine’s media kit. Rolling Stone may claim that the four-page cartoon spread is not part of the Camel ad that surrounds it, but the cartoon’s content, layout and placement make it appear to be an integral part of the ad. That can’t be an accident. Why would the spread begin and end with a Surgeon General’s warning if it wasn’t a cigarette ad?
The end result of this nine-page spread is exactly what the tobacco settlement sought to stop, which is the use of cartoon characters to market cigarettes.
http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/camel/rollingstone_112007/
The Motion Picture Assn. of America announced today that smoking will be considered when rating movies and "depictions that glamorize smoking or movies that feature pervasive smoking outside of an historic or other mitigating context may receive a higher rating."
Smoking will become a factor in decisions by the Classification and Rating Administration, along with violence, language, nudity, drug abuse and other elements.
"There is broad awareness of smoking as a unique public health concern due to nicotine's highly addictive nature, and no parent wants their child to take up the habit,'' MPAA Chief Executive Dan Glickman said. "The appropriate response of the rating system is to give more information to parents on this issue."
But the MPAA resisted calls by some antismoking advocacy groups to give any film with smoking a mandatory "R" rating . . .
Films whose ratings are affected by smoking will include explanations, such as "glamorized smoking" or "pervasive smoking."
glamorized smoking pervasive smokingFilms whose ratings are affected by smoking will include such explanations, according to new rules by the Motion Picture Assn. of America .
A federal judge on Friday put Utah one step closer to possibly losing a significant chunk of settlement cash from tobacco companies. After a hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Dee Benson ordered Utah lumped into binding arbitration with some 50 states and two territories against the tobacco companies, who have claimed the states have dragged their feet in seeking legal action against other tobacco companies who chose not to participate in a 1998 settlement. This, they argue, puts participating tobacco companies, which have paid out billions to the states, at a market disadvantage. Participating companies, such as R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., claim the states deserve a reduction in settlement funds, at least for the year 2003. For Utah this means it could lose its entire 2003 settlement payment of $32.6 million, posingpotentially serious problems fornumerous state health programs that rely on settlement funding. Nationally the total loss has been tallied at $1.2 billion, according to court documents.
In an ironic twist, the American Legacy Foundation has called on tobacco companies to pull their parent-targeted anti-smoking ads, at least in part because an upcoming study in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health suggests that cigarette manufacturers' spots actually increase the likelihood that teens will smoke in the future.
Philip Morris USA, however, the only tobacco company currently on air with youth-focused anti-smoking ads, refutes the study's findings and contends that its initiative for encouraging parents to discuss smoking with the children (themed "Talk. They'll listen") is attaining its goals.
"The tobacco industry ads are a trick on young people," said Legacy CEO Cheryl Healton, in a statement. "By creating these ads, the industry claims to be trying to help our nation's youth and acts as if these ads are truly aimed at discouraging smoking. However, this study, along with previous research proves that this is simply not the case. The tobacco industry is in the business of selling cigarettes. What does help discourage youth smoking rates are ads and messages provided by sources that are independent of the tobacco industry."
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell said he would meet with other AGs to determine if tobacco-industry prevention ads violate the prohibition on youth marketing. . . . "[Our] goal in this area is to have an effective youth smoking prevention program and to that end we believe in collaborative dialogue with the public health community to help identify any potential improvements to our youth smoking prevention communications. The campaign is directed at parents because that is what experts tell us is the most effective way."
[Our] goal in this area is to have an effective youth smoking prevention program and to that end we believe in collaborative dialogue with the public health community to help identify any potential improvements to our youth smoking prevention communications. The campaign is directed at parents because that is what experts tell us is the most effective way.Dave Sutton, a Philip Morris representative, who didn't mention what Philip Morris does when experts say the most effective way is to stop their youth smoking prevention communications.
You've seen the no-smoking signs at neighborhood theaters. Get ready to install one in your TV set.
Beginning with the December release of "Clerks II," The Weinstein Co. will begin placing anti-smoking public service announcements in DVD releases of its films.
"As a former smoker, I feel like it's my responsibility to do everything I can to educate young people about the dangers of smoking," Harvey Weinstein said in a statement released Tuesday. "We really hope this initiative will have an impact with viewers across the country."
Weinstein and his brother Bob said they decided to start inserting the anti-smoking messages at the request of the attorneys general of more than 40 states, including Connecticut. The messages are being produced by the American Legacy Foundation
These messages will fight false film images of healthy and hip smokers with the real hard truth of addiction and disease. The Weinstein brothers are setting a model for responsible moviemaking."Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, on the decision of The Weinstein Co. to begin placing anti-smoking public service announcements in DVD releases of its films.
But underage smokers are often enticed by these and several dozen other candy-, fruit- and alcohol-flavored cigarettes.
That's the concern of California and at least 38 other state attorneys general who Wednesday announced a ban on the sale of flavored cigarettes by R.J. Reynolds, saying the "exotic blends" were designed to lure kids into trying cigarettes, not to satisfy adult smokers.
"An investigation showed that the methods that R.J. Reynolds used to market these products made it very clear that they were targeting youth," said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. "Everything -- the flavors, the graphic design and the candy scents -- appealed to kids."
R.J. Reynolds, the tobacco giant that has drawn criticism for decades for using a friendly cartoon Camel as its logo, was the only U.S. manufacturer of the flavored cigarettes. The company said it welcomed the ban on sales.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. has agreed to stop using candy, fruit and alcohol names for flavored cigarettes that may appeal to children, Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan said Wednesday in announcing a settlement with the company.
The company also agreed to a U.S. ban on Camel, Kool and Salem flavored cigarettes sold under such names as "Twista Lime" and "Winter MochaMint." R.J. Reynolds may still produce future brands of flavored cigarettes, but it cannot use candy, fruit or alcoholic beverages in the name or market them in a way that appeals to youths, Madigan said.
"In marketing their flavored cigarettes, what Reynolds did was really to lure our youth into smoking by enticing them with candy and candy flavors," Madigan said during a news conference at a health center on Chicago's West Side.
The agreement ends an investigation led by Madigan's office and New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer into violations of a master settlement agreement Illinois, New York and other states reached with the company in 1998. At least 38 other states joined in the agreement announced Wednesday. . . .
Fred McConnell, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds, said that the only flavored cigarettes remaining would be those sold at the specialty Chicago tobacco lounge Marshall McGearty in Wicker Park. But the packaging of those cigarettes will be changed so that they don't use names barred by the agreement, he said.
R.J. Reynolds has agreed to a domestic ban on flavored cigarettes such as "Twista Lime" and "Mocha Taboo" that critics say are marketed to youths. But a deal struck with 40 states exempts the company's new experimental "smoking lounge" in Chicago and allows the company to sell flavored cigarettes in the future if the packaging doesn't emphasize candy or sweet imagery, the company and state officials said Wednesday.
The tobacco giant settled a broad investigation of its domestic sales and marketing without paying any penalty. The company agreed to stop identifying flavored cigarettes with candy, fruit, desserts, or alcoholic beverage names, imagery or ads, according to a statement from New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The company will also stop using scented promotional material, including scratch-and-sniff samples.
The agreement, effective Wednesday, allows the continued sale of flavored cigarette only in Chicago's Marshall McGearty's, billed as the nation's first cigarette lounge.
Tobacco giant RJ Reynolds will ban flavoured cigarettes after reaching an agreement with 39 US states as part of a bid to stamp out youth smoking, it was announced.
A statement from California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said RJ Reynolds would end sales of candy, fruit and alcohol flavoured products following representations to the firm.
Lockyer said products manufactured by the firm had broken an undertaking it made eight years ago to cease targeting young smokers.
"In marketing these products to our youth, RJR violated the agreement it made with the states back in 1998 to stop targeting kids," said Lockyer. "Hopefully, this settlement will keep RJR from breaking its word again and ensure the company acts responsibly to help protect children from starting a deadly habit."
RJ Reynolds will ban flavoured cigarettes produced under its Camel, Kool and Salem brands, including "Mandarin Mint", "Twista Lime", "Warm Winter Toffee" and "SnakeEyes Scotch".