[Headlines Only] [Top Stories Only]
Categories
· Lawsuits
· Teen Smoking/Youth
Lawsuits
· Brown
· Daniels
Organizations
· MO
· RJR
· B&W
· Lorillard

Underage Smoking Case Is Dismissed 

Tobacco: A California judge says cigarette advertising enjoys 1st Amendment protection even if some ads appeal to children.
Jump to full article: Los Angeles Times, 2002-09-14
Author: MYRON LEVIN, TIMES STAFF WRITER

Intro:

Trial of the case, known as Daniels vs. Philip Morris, had been expected this fall. . .

Although not binding on courts in other states, the decision was a setback for lawyers and health groups that have sought to hold cigarette makers legally responsible for underage smoking, which they say the industry has encouraged with ads portraying smoking as glamorous and cool.

Industry lawyers are certain to cite Prager's reasoning in other big cases in Illinois, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia involving cigarette marketing practices. . .

Prager's decision came in a pair of preliminary rulings Thursday. He set a Sept. 30 hearing for plaintiffs to seek reconsideration. John F. "Mickey" McGuire, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said if their argument fails, they expect to appeal. . .

Moreover, Prager said, "apart from asserting the defendants' advertising is misleading and deceptive ... because it associates smoking with 'glamorous,' 'cool,' 'strong,' 'macho,' 'tough' and 'sophisticated' images ... that have 'sex appeal'... plaintiffs point to no other allegedly misleading or deceptive information contained in the ads." . .

Also pending before Prager is another tobacco class action called the Brown case, which seeks to hold the industry liable for its marketing practices. Some observers said that based on Prager's reasoning in Daniels, the Brown case seems in jeopardy too.

Jump to full article »