Tobacco.org

In Loss for Big Tobacco, Calif. Supreme Court Loosens Standing to Sue Under Proposition 64 

Big Tobacco and other major businesses took a hit Monday when the California Supreme Court ruled that class actions over alleged fraud can go forward, even if it's impossible to tell whether every plaintiff was harmed by deceptive ads.

"We conclude that standing requirements are applicable only to the class representatives, and not all absent class members," Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a 4-3 court.

The ruling is important because it clarifies that Proposition 64, passed by the voters in 2004, doesn't prevent average citizens from acting as so-called private attorneys general in class actions under the state's unfair competition law. Some experts had argued that the ballot initiative limited the filing of UCL suits to government officials, such as the attorney general.

"This is a great day for the consumers of California," Mark Robinson, a partner in Newport Beach, Calif.'s Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson who represented the plaintiffs, said during a conference call. "The reality is that this gives the consumers rights to protect themselves from fraudulent advertising."

Smoker Willard Brown filed the class action against Philip Morris USA Inc. and several other tobacco manufacturers in 1997, accusing them of violating the state's unfair competition law by allegedly denying that smoking causes serious illnesses, such as cancer, and advertising cigarettes as non-addictive. The class was seeking only injunctive relief and restitution.

Jump to full article »