Jump to full article: Associated Press (AP), 2006-06-14
Author: JULIE CARR SMYTH, Associated Press Writer
Intro: Two Ohio smokers cannot bring a class-action lawsuit against Philip Morris USA Inc. over the way the tobacco giant marketed "light" cigarettes, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
The smokers had argued that Richmond, Va.-based Philip Morris knew cigarettes it marketed as having less tar and nicotine would be as dangerous as regular cigarettes.
The tobacco company, which is a unit of Altria Group Inc., contended that Ohio law requires a more specific warning from the state on a company's marketing practices before allowing lawsuits to apply beyond individuals to an entire class.
In a divided decision, the high court ruled that Philip Morris would have had to act in a way "previously declared to be deceptive" under Ohio law when pitching its light cigarettes -- and the smokers failed to demonstrate the company had. Powerful lobbyists for manufacturers and other Ohio businesses had fought a lower court's decision allowing a class action suit, which they saw as possibly opening business sectors other than tobacco to future litigation.
Writing for the majority, Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton said the court's ruling should not be interpreted as ruling on the underlying question of whether Philip Morris acted to "deliberately deceive consumers into believing that Marlboro Lights and Virginia Slims Lights are safer or healthier than other cigarettes" -- only on whether the smokers were eligible for class-action status. . . .
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Paul Pfeifer attacked the majority's "unconscionably narrow reading" of Ohio law, saying it "has effectively immunized companies from class-action lawsuits by the people they deceive." He said past case law, though it regarded consumer products other than cigarettes, should apply in this case.
"If PMI (Philip Morris) acted as alleged, it knew that it was being deceptive and it knew that another company, albeit in a different business, had been found liable for a similar deceptive and unconscionable practice," Pfeifer wrote.
Jump to full article » |