http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/category/lawsuits.rss Latest top tobacco news headlines en-us http://www.wickedlocal.com/salem/news/lifestyle/columnists/x235897027/Robert-Moran-Smoking-legal-and-smoky-environments http://tobacco.org/news/292288.html Nov. 19 is the American Cancer Society's 32nd annual Great American Smokeout. In support, "Thinking about Salem" will address smoking in three columns highlighting significant developments and research findings published from September 2008 through August 2009. Legal environment It was a momentous year. On June 22, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act became law. It gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) extensive authorities to regulate tobacco for public health purposes. . . . The industry took a knee to its pocketbook just before Christmas. The Supreme Court ruled smokers could sue manufactures who advertised cigarettes as “light” for fraud. At trial, plaintiffs successfully argued manufactures knew people smoking reduced tar and nicotine cigarettes would alter their smoking habits to extract as much tar and nicotine from “lights” as they got from full-strengths. This ruling bodes badly for tobacco in an ongoing racketeering case. In July, a three-judge panel from the Federal Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a 2006 conviction of tobacco companies for conspiring to suppress evidence smoking is harmful. Along with huge fines ($280 billion), the trial court prohibited advertising any cigarette as “light.” If tobacco appeals its racketeering conviction to the Supreme Court, as the financial press reports it will, court-watchers think it will fare badly. Wicked Local SalemThink@aol.com (Robert Moran / Thinking about Salem) Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.chieflandcitizen.com/cgi-bin/c2.cgi?022 article News 20091104160712022022001 http://tobacco.org/news/292263.html Judge Stan Griffis stays busy presiding over cases that involve family issues, probate and other non-felony civil matters, but he says it’s the foreclosures that keep him tied up these days. “Foreclosures are a staggering portion of my docket,” Griffis told Williston Rotary members last week. . . . he will hear suits filed by eight individuals against the tobacco industry. Originally a class action suit that was tried in Miami, Griffis said the case was overturned by the State Supreme Court, which also declassified the lawsuit, putting it back into the hands of the individual plaintiffs. Now those individuals have refiled the suits and they will be heard here. What that means for Levy residents, Griffis said, is the high probability of being selected to be on the juries that hear the cases. Each case is expected to last three weeks, the judge said, and senior judges will more than likely pick up his regular docket while he is occupied with the lengthy lawsuits. While Levy County has eight such suits, Alachua has 70, he said. Chiefland Citizen Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/nov/06/rjr-try-falls-short/ http://tobacco.org/news/292226.html R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.'s bid to carve out a "free speech" marketing niche for innovative products received a setback yesterday. A U.S. District Court judge denied a motion for a preliminary injunction by Reynolds regarding the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which became law in June. Judge Joseph McKinley ruled that "the plaintiffs have little likelihood of success" in challenging the modified-risk tobacco-products provision of the law. A lawsuit was filed Aug. 31 in the Western District of Kentucky against the federal government and the Food and Drug Administration by Reynolds; Conwood Co. LLC, a sister company with Reynolds American Inc.; Lorillard Inc.; Commonwealth Brands Inc.; and two other parties. The companies said they are trying to "protect their First Amendment right to communicate with adult tobacco consumers about their products." . . . However, Adam Spielman, an analyst with Citigroup Global Markets Inc., said he believes that regulation will not undercut Reynolds' smokeless innovations. "The rules on new products do not require sign-off from the FDA if the product is substantially equivalent health-wise to existing products," he said. The decision comes at a time when the National Cancer Institute has provided grants for a new series of medical studies on smokeless-tobacco products, some focused on whether the products provide a less harmful alternative to conventional tobacco products. Winston-Salem Journal rcraver@wsjournal.com ( Richard Craver * Journal Reporter) Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWkf5Lbl2ri_uUA8hqFO13YMI9_gD9BPKVLG2 http://tobacco.org/news/292225.html A federal judge ruled Thursday that tobacco companies hoping to block new restrictions on their marketing have little chance of succeeding. The companies had asked U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. to issue a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit they filed in August claiming new tobacco regulations violate their right to free speech. The companies, including two of the industry's three largest, are challenging provisions of a law that gave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration new authority over tobacco. In a 29-page decision, McKinley outlined the arguments in the lawsuit and found that blocking the provisions was not warranted. The ruling focused on a narrow portion of the legal challenge dealing with modified-risk tobacco products. AP Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/pressoffice/Preliminary_Injunction_11052009.pdf http://tobacco.org/news/292223.html The question before the Court is whether Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing the need for the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the MRTP provision. Tennessee Scrap Recyclers Ass’n v. Bredesen, 556 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009). In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, courts consider four factors: (a) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (b) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction; (c) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (d) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of the injunction. . . . Assuming that the MRTP provision implicates the First Amendment, it seems likely that its restrictions on speech are constitutionally permissible. . . . In sum, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have little likelihood of success on the merits of their facial First Amendment challenge to the MRTP provision except on the theory that it operates as a prior restraint on speech and lacks a reasonable time limit for FDA review. . . . Having considered each of the required factors, the Court finds that the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction is unwarranted. 29 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/business/local/article/B-TOBA06_20091105-213204/303947/ http://tobacco.org/news/292222.html A federal judge has turned down a request by the nation's No. 2 cigarette-maker and others to immediately halt enforcement of new federal regulations on tobacco products. Their challenge to new U.S. Food and Drug Administration powers to regulate what tobacco firms say about their products has little likelihood of success, except on one point, Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Bowling Green, Ky., ruled yesterday. Because of that, and because the businesses couldn't show they faced irreparable harm, McKinley rejected tobacco companies' request for a preliminary injunction stopping FDA enforcement of rules limiting what they say about products they believe reduce the risk of using tobacco. Richmond Times-Dispatch dress@timesdispatch.com (David Ress) Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/Script/DisplayPressRelease.php3?Display=1179 http://tobacco.org/news/292220.html In a clear victory for public health, a federal judge in Kentucky today rejected a motion by tobacco companies to block key provisions of the new law giving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the power to regulate tobacco products. Specifically, today's decision strongly supports the government's authority to prevent the industry from making health claims about its products without FDA approval. We applaud the federal court's decision to quickly and decisively reject the latest attempt by Big Tobacco to frustrate the intent of the new FDA law and allow the agency to get on with its role in putting an end to deceptive and dangerous tobacco marketing. Eleven public health and consumer advocacy groups joined in the legal effort to thwart the industry's challenge to the law based on the claim that its First Amendment rights were violated. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWkf5Lbl2ri_uUA8hqFO13YMI9_gD9BPJIHG1 http://tobacco.org/news/292206.html A federal judge ruled Thursday that tobacco companies hoping to block new restrictions on their marketing have little chance of succeeding. The companies had asked U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. to issue a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit they filed in August claiming new tobacco regulations violate their right to free speech. The companies, including two of the industry's three largest, are challenging provisions of a law that gave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration new authority over tobacco. In a 29-page decision, McKinley outlined the arguments in the lawsuit and found that blocking the provisions was not warranted. . . . The companies say the law, which takes full effect over three years, prohibits them from using "color lettering, trademarks, logos or any other imagery in most advertisements, including virtually all point-of-sale and direct-mail advertisements." Their complaint also says the law prohibits tobacco companies from "making truthful statements about their products in scientific, public policy and political debates." The tobacco makers say new mandated warnings for cigarettes would relegate their branding to the bottom half of cigarette packaging and make it "difficult, if not impossible, to see." In its response to the lawsuit, the FDA said the new marketing rules do not restrict free speech and serve a greater public health interest. AP Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/nov/05/judge-denies-rjr-motion-injunction/ http://tobacco.org/news/292204.html R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.'s bid to carve out a "free speech" marketing niche for innovative products was dealt a blow today. A U.S. District Court judge in Richmond denied a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by Reynolds and other tobacco manufacturers regarding The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. A lawsuit was filed Aug. 31 against the federal government and the Food and Drug Administration by Reynolds, Conwood Co. LLC, a sister company with Reynolds American Inc., Lorillard Inc. and Commonwealth Brands Inc. The companies had sought a preliminary injunction against The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. They said they are trying to "protect their First Amendment right to communicate with adult tobacco consumers about their products." But Judge Joseph McKinley ruled that the "plaintiffs have little likelihood of success" in their challenge to the modified risk tobacco products provision in the law. Winston-Salem Journal Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.charlotteobserver.com/politics/story/1038148.html http://tobacco.org/news/292202.html Albert Diaz Albert Diaz, 48 HOMETOWN: New York City, now lives in Charlotte. CURRENT JOB: Special Superior Court judge for complex business cases, one of three in North Carolina. EDUCATION: Bachelor's degree, University of Pennsylvania, 1983; New York University School of Law, 1988; Master's in Business Administration, Boston University, 1993. EXPERIENCE: U.S. Marine Corps Legal Services Support Section and U.S. Navy Office of the Judge Advocate General. Left active duty in the Marine Corps in 1995 and worked as an associate at Hunton & Williams law firm. Appointed to the N.C. Superior Court in 2001. Served as a reserve military judge in the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary until he retired from the military in 2006 at the rank of Lt. Colonel. . . . He left the service in 1995 for private practice. He made a name for himself at the law firm of Hunton & Williams representing Philip Morris during tobacco lawsuits in the late 1990s. Charlotte Observer mjohnson@charlotteobserver.com (Barbara Barrett and Mark Johnson) Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2009m11d5-Cigarette-smoke-wafting-onto-neighbors-patio-brings-lawsuit http://tobacco.org/news/292181.html This is the story of two neighbors and a dispute over secondhand smoke in the Sacramento suburb of El Dorado Hills. It seems like a minor story, especially with everything that's wrong in California: . . . In short, the state is a disaster. You'd think with all those problems that a dispute between neighbors over cigarette smoke wouldn't generate much interest but it has garnered more response in the local newspaper than anything the paper has reported in recent memory --and frankly, the Sacramento Bee has been doing a bang-up job uncovering all sorts of graft, waste and corruption in state government. Does this story resonate at the national level? Here's the deal: A California couple has filed a lawsuit seeking relief from their next-door neighbor's second-hand cigarette smoke. Richard and Donna Ganguet were the first to move into a gated community for people age 55 and older. That was 2006. Today, they claim the cigar and cigarette smoke wafts into their yard from the property of neighbor has caused an intolerable situation. . . . The responses --over 600 on the newspaper's website-- are all over the board. . . . I had a problem a few years ago with heavy smoking neighbors. No amount of pleading would get them to take their smoke somewhere other than directly into my windows. I fixed the problem by putting an old piece of fish in a bowl, hooking up a small, quiet fan right behind it, and placing the rig right next to the fence. Worked like a charm - inside two days, the neighbors moved their smoking area away from my side and didn't come back to it. Don't get mad, get even. What do you think? How do you resolve this problem between two neighbors? Examiner.com Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aT4Dj_JwhBUE http://tobacco.org/news/292117.html A deadline for lawsuits seeking to recoup smokers’ health-care costs from a Japan Tobacco Inc. unit that had been sought by British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick was rejected by a judge for coming prematurely. The Canadian provinces want their claims for treating people with smoking-related illnesses included among those of creditors for Japan Tobacco’s insolvent JTI-MacDonald unit. The provinces said they feared nothing would remain if JTI settled a federal lawsuit that seeks to recover lost taxes from cigarette smuggling in the 1990s. Ontario Superior Court Judge Peter Cumming called the request premature in an Oct. 30 ruling. The provinces may challenge the company’s plan to exit bankruptcy when it is submitted, the judge said. “There is no plan of arrangement being put forth or even seen at this point on the distant horizon,” Cumming wrote. Bloomberg News jschneider5@bloomberg.net (Joe Schneider) Canada Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2009/03/c5304.html http://tobacco.org/news/292113.html Across Canada, provinces are taking steps to hold the tobacco industry accountable for decades of destructive behaviour through health care cost-recovery lawsuits. Eight provinces have already passed legislation permitting legal action, and of those British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario have filed suits with Quebec indicating it is also prepared to join them. While compensation for health costs incurred by governments and taxpayers is a factor behind these suits, delegates at the 6th Annual National Conference on Tobacco or Health are learning that this is about much more than just money. "It is about far more than dollars and cents," said Michael Perley, executive director, Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco. According to Perley and other public health advocates, there are four pillars to cost-recovery lawsuits, including: Justice: holding the tobacco industry accountable for decades of unethical and destructive behaviour; Truth: revealing tobacco industry documents previously sealed and bringing light to countless lies and deceptive tactics; Health: admitting the true risks of tobacco products and changing industry behaviour; Compensation: recovering costs previously borne by government and taxpayers. Canada Newswire Canada Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSTRE5A25G020091103 http://tobacco.org/news/292094.html The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is moving quickly to use its sweeping new tobacco powers despite facing swift legal action from cigarette makers, the agency's tobacco chief told Reuters on Tuesday. Dr. Lawrence Deyton said lawsuits from companies such as Reynolds American Inc (RAI.N), Lorillard Inc (LO.N) and others are not slowing his work to set up the FDA's tobacco unit or take action against products that harm the public, especially children. "Congress is very clear what it wants me to do, I'm moving ahead. Nobody's told me not to," Deyton said in an interview at his office in suburban Maryland. Reuters Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://thejakartaglobe.com/business/indonesia-seeks-to-clear-the-air-over-us-kretek-ban/339372 http://tobacco.org/news/292090.html Burned by the recent US ban on kretek cigarettes, Trade Minister Mari Pangestu said government officials would soon meet with their US counterparts in an effort to alleviate smoldering tension over the issue. Kretek cigarettes were banned by the US Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 21 on the grounds that their sweet flavor encouraged young people to take up smoking. “We will arrange a meeting and will be having consultations to seek a fair solution to this matter,” Mari told the Jakarta Globe on Tuesday. The discussions, Mari said, are a preliminary response, but if no solution is found, then “at the end, it will be taken to the World Trade Organization.” Mari said previously that the ban was highly detrimental to this country’s clove farmers and was in breach of WTO rules. . . . Kretek International is apparently not going to take the issue lying down and is now seeking a declaratory ruling from the US District Court in Washington that its cigars are not cigarettes and can therefore be freely sold. In its petition, it accused the FDA of “deliberately obfuscating” the definition of cigarette,” adding that “If a product is a cigar, it is not a cigarette, and vice versa.” Jakarta Globe Indonesia USA Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT