Categories · Lawsuits
· Labels/Lights
USA, by State · Massachusetts
Lawsuits · Aspinall
Organizations · MO
|
Jump to full article: Tobacco Control Resource Center, 2004-08-13
Intro: Mark Gottlieb: . . . " . . . . The real battle in these cases is over the issue of class certification. The facts surrounding the deception are hardly in dispute and it is likely that the trial will result in a finding of damages that may reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more. It is important to remember that this case is not about sick smokers but rather about duped consumers who thought they were getting a lower tar and nicotine cigarette but were in fact getting a cigarette that was as dangerous and addictive, if not more so, than so-called 'full flavor' brands."
Edward L. Sweda, Jr. . . . , added: "Today's ruling is terrific news for the plaintiffs who have filed similar consumer fraud cases against the tobacco companies. While the tobacco industry and their friends on Wall Street may have been surprised by the SJC's decision, it is clear that, as the majority ruled, the '[trial] judge's conclusion that the plaintiffs' claim warrants certification as a consumer class action is amply supported by the record. We conclude that a class action is not only an appropriate method to resolve the plaintiffs' allegations, but, pragmatically, the only method whereby purchasers of Marlboro Lights in Massachusetts can seek redress for the alleged deception.' Today's decision properly focuses on the fraudulent and deceptive misconduct of Philip Morris, as the plaintiffs allege. This ruling will be very helpful to the attorneys representing the plaintiff class in the Price v. Philip Morris case in Illinois that resulted in a $10.1 billion judgment last year."
Jump to full article » |