Tobacco.org

• SULLIVAN v. B&W (PDF) 

We thus conclude that an express warranty claim arising solely out of the use of descriptors based on the FTC method is preempted. In Cipollone, where the plaintiff was permitted to proceed with his express warranty claim, the plaintiff had produced advertisements explicitly stating that there was “proof” that that brand of cigarettes “never ... did you any harm.” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 893 F.2d 541, 549 (3d Cir. 1990). The defendant in that case was held liable for the additional representations that it made with respect to the safety of its products, not for its use of the FTC-approved descriptors. We therefore hold that the district court erred in finding that Plaintiffs’ express warranty claim is not pre-empted by the Labeling Act.

2. The district court also held that Plaintiffs’ claims based on alleged breach of implied warranty are not pre-empted. This holding finds no support in the Cipollone opinion. As Plaintiffs failed to explain the basis of this claim in their pleadings or to argue in support of this claim on appeal, and as the district court failed to provide any discussion of the pre-emption analysis with respect to the claim in its order, we will not consider it for the first time here. We therefore hold that this claim is dismissed with prejudice.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with directions to enter a judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice.

Jump to full article »