http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/lawsuit/daniels.rss Latest top tobacco news headlines en-us http://www.pr-inside.com/us-supreme-court-rejects-smokers-lawsuit-r488898.htm http://tobacco.org/news/261389.html The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to consider a lawsuit that alleged tobacco companies turned minors into smokers by targeting them with cigarette advertising. The California Supreme Court ruled against the smokers last August, saying a federal law on cigarette advertising and the companies' First Amendment rights to commercial speech allowed the marketing campaigns. At issue is whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act pre-empts California law. The federal law confirms the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to regulate unfair or deceptive practices in cigarette advertising. AP Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.wlf.org/Litigating/casedetail.asp?detail=373 http://tobacco.org/news/206584.html On September 14, 2005, WLF filed a brief in the California Supreme Court, urging it to uphold the dismissal of tort claims filed against tobacco companies for having run truthful advertising that allegedly overglamorized smoking. WLF argued that such claims are barred both by the First Amendment and by federal law -- regardless of the plaintiffs' claim that glamorous advertisements induce minors to buy cigarettes in violation of California law. Washington Legal Foundation info@wlf.org Wed, 14 Sep 2005 04:00:00 GMT http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041007/clth073_1.html http://tobacco.org/news/178519.html The Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal in California has upheld the dismissal of a class- action lawsuit filed against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation and other major U.S. cigarette manufacturers. The lawsuit, brought by Devin Daniels and other individuals as class representatives, was filed on behalf of all California resident minors (under the age of 18) who smoked one or more cigarettes between April 2, 1994, and Dec. 31, 1999, and who were exposed to the defendants' marketing and advertising activities in the state during that period. Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager had granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Sept. 13, 2002, principally on First Amendment and preemption (by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act) grounds. PR Newswire Thu, 07 Oct 2004 04:00:00 GMT http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/state/9715841.htm http://tobacco.org/news/176865.html SAN DIEGO - Attorneys trying to revive a class-action lawsuit argued in court that the once-popular "Joe Camel" campaign was strategically designed to recruit underage smokers. Lawyers representing Californians who began smoking as teens also argued Monday that tobacco companies should not be allowed to use the First Amendment to illegally market cigarettes to children. Attorneys for the plaintiffs asked the Fourth District Court of Appeal to revive a class-action lawsuit dismissed in 2002 by San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager. . . . The case is Daniels, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al D041356. Contra Costa Times Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:00:00 GMT http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/jccp/tobacco/orders/tr020912_719446(2).html http://tobacco.org/news/103434.html A. Mangini's holding was based on Cipollone, which supports Defendants' rather than Plaintiffs' position, and mandates the dismissal of the instant action as preempted under 15 U.S.C. 1334(b). . . For purposes of this case, which seeks broad injunctive relief akin to negative prohibitions on tobacco advertisement, and this motion for summary judgment, Mangini and Cipollone do make one thing clear: that Plaintiffs' section 17200 claim under the deceptive and misleading prongs and Plaintiffs' section 17500 claim are preempted insofar as they are based on the same or a similar fraud theory examined in Cipollone (namely that of negating or rendering ineffective the federally mandated warnings on cigarette packages or, as stated in this case, that of "try[ing] to neutralize information reaching children from teachers, parents and public health officials concerning the health risks of smoking" (see Plaintiffs' Opposition Memorandum at 1:27-1:2), as the Courts in Cipollone and Mangini found these claims to be preempted. Mangini, 7 Cal.4th at 1067 (discussing Cipollone). Moreover, the reasoning behind the Court's decision in Cipollone is very applicable here, as any contrary ruling in this action would lead to the imposition of an impermissible prohibition that would constitute "the converse of a state-law requirement that warnings be included in advertising and promotions materials." . . III. CONCLUSION As a result, and for all the foregoing reasons, this Court must dismiss Plaintiffs' case, as Plaintiffs' UCL claims are either preempted under 15 U.S.C. sections 1334(a) or 1334(b) or based on inadmissible evidence under Civil Code section 47(b) or Civil Code section 1714.45. San Diego Superior Court Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:00:00 GMT http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-smoke14sep14.story http://tobacco.org/news/103433.html Trial of the case, known as Daniels vs. Philip Morris, had been expected this fall. . . Although not binding on courts in other states, the decision was a setback for lawyers and health groups that have sought to hold cigarette makers legally responsible for underage smoking, which they say the industry has encouraged with ads portraying smoking as glamorous and cool. Industry lawyers are certain to cite Prager's reasoning in other big cases in Illinois, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia involving cigarette marketing practices. . . Prager's decision came in a pair of preliminary rulings Thursday. He set a Sept. 30 hearing for plaintiffs to seek reconsideration. John F. "Mickey" McGuire, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said if their argument fails, they expect to appeal. . . Moreover, Prager said, "apart from asserting the defendants' advertising is misleading and deceptive ... because it associates smoking with 'glamorous,' 'cool,' 'strong,' 'macho,' 'tough' and 'sophisticated' images ... that have 'sex appeal'... plaintiffs point to no other allegedly misleading or deceptive information contained in the ads." . . Also pending before Prager is another tobacco class action called the Brown case, which seeks to hold the industry liable for its marketing practices. Some observers said that based on Prager's reasoning in Daniels, the Brown case seems in jeopardy too. Los Angeles Times Sat, 14 Sep 2002 04:00:00 GMT http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20020914-9999_6m14tobacco.html http://tobacco.org/news/103423.html Prager's ruling will only become final later this month after those suing the companies have an opportunity to challenge it. The suit charged the companies with intentionally targeting teen-agers in marketing cigarettes in order to get them addicted. It sought to ban advertising aimed at teens and force the companies to forfeit profits from cigarette sales to minors. But Prager ruled there was no evidence of "any tobacco advertisements that expressly or directly encourage the purchase of tobacco by minors or the sale of tobacco to minors by retailers." . . Attorneys can try to change Prager's mind by asking for a hearing, which would be held Sept. 30. San Diego Union-Tribune greg.moran@uniontrib.com (Greg Moran / UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER) Sat, 14 Sep 2002 04:00:00 GMT http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020913/132283_1.html http://tobacco.org/news/103411.html -A California judge intends to dismiss a state-wide class-action case alleging that cigarette advertising misled minors and caused them to smoke. The judge ruled that the case sought to restrict factually accurate advertising and constitutionally protected speech. The telephonic ruling by Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prager was issued late Thursday. Under court rules, the plaintiffs have an opportunity to request a hearing before the decision becomes final on Sept. 30. "Plaintiffs have presented no evidence of any tobacco advertisements that expressly or directly encourage the purchase of tobacco by minors or the sale of tobacco to minors by retailers." Judge Prager said in his ruling. He added that, "as a matter of law, (the companies') challenged speech does not relate to an unlawful activity and is not deceptive." In a separate order, Judge Prager ruled that the plaintiffs' claims also must be dismissed because they are preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. According to Judge Prager's opinion, federal law reserves unto Congress and the Federal Trade Commission the authority to regulate cigarette advertising. . . Similar lawsuits are pending in other jurisdictions, including Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. Business Wire Fri, 13 Sep 2002 04:00:00 GMT http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/jccp/tobacco/orders/tr020912_719446.html http://tobacco.org/news/103404.html the issue of whether or not strict scrutiny applies is moot, as the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the less-demanding test set forth in Central Hudson, which is applicable to commercial speech, as well as the test for inciting unlawful activity . . . D.            As the fourth part of the Central Hudson test is not met here, the First Amendment protects Defendants’ commercial speech. . . For the foregoing reasons, this Court concludes that Plaintiffs' UCL case does not withstand First Amendment scrutiny and must therefore be dismissed. Should Plaintiffs wish to present oral argument, they shall file and serve with the Court by 4.00 p.m. on September 17, 2002, a three-page letter brief (1) identifying the issues to be argued and (2) stating a summary of the arguments to be presented on each issue. The opposing party shall file and serve by 4:00 p.m. on September 20, 2002, a three-page letter brief responding to the arguments. If the Court receives the letter brief requesting oral argument by the above deadline, oral argument is scheduled for September 30, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. San Diego Superior Court Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:00:00 GMT http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15017-2002Sep13.html http://tobacco.org/news/103403.html A judge said he will dismiss a lawsuit accusing tobacco companies of continuing to target minors with advertising, but gave the plaintiffs one last chance to respond. Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager issued a preliminary ruling Thursday indicating he will dismiss the class-action lawsuit filed in 1998 against Philip Morris Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. Plaintiffs must decide by Tuesday whether to present an oral argument to the judge later this month. . . In June, Prager fined Reynolds $20 million, agreeing that the company improperly pitched cigarettes to teens in the pages of magazines such as Spin, Vibe and Rolling Stone that have large teen readerships. But that lawsuit was filed by the state, which accused Reynolds of violating the 1998 settlement. Private plaintiffs cannot sue to enforce the settlement, which bars the companies from targeting minors directly or indirectly. The class-action lawsuit alleges that tobacco companies target minors through tactics that include placing ads in stores near candy shelves and at a child's eye level. But Prager indicated that he has not found evidence that the four companies had run ads directly encouraging minors to smoke. AP Fri, 13 Sep 2002 04:00:00 GMT http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/010613/0559.html http://tobacco.org/news/68353.html PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IT RELATES TO THE PENDENCY OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT, AND IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION AS TO YOUR RIGHTS. . . There is a lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego entitled Daniels v. Philip Morris, Case No. 719446 (JCCP No. 4042) (the ``Lawsuit'') filed by Plaintiffs Devin Daniels, Bryce Clements, Daimon Fullerton, Nicole Morrow and Maren Sandler (``Plaintiffs'') against Philip Morris Incorporated, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and Lorillard Tobacco Company (``Defendants''). The Plaintiffs' Complaint in the Lawsuit alleges that, during the relevant period, the Defendants engaged in unlawful and deceptive marketing and advertising practices in order to seduce and induce minors in California to smoke cigarettes (the ``Practices''). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' Practices constitute unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code ss. 17200. . . The sole purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the pendency of this Lawsuit so that you may make an informed decision as to whether you wish to remain in or opt out of this class action. . . ALL PERSONS WHO AS CALIFORNIA RESIDENT MINORS (UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE) SMOKED ONE OR MORE CIGARETTES IN CALIFORNIA BETWEEN APRIL 2, 1994 AND DECEMBER 31, 1999. Business Wire Wed, 13 Jun 2001 04:00:00 GMT