Tobacco Articles: lawsuit marrone

Ohio high court restricts class actions : Lower-court ruling in Philip Morris suit is overturned

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:00:00 GMT

A split Ohio Supreme Court Wednesday imposed new restrictions on residents who want to file class-action lawsuits against companies accused of deceptive practices. In a 4-3 ruling, justices overturned lower-court decisions that granted class status in a case filed by Northeast Ohioans who sued Philip Morris, Inc., claiming fraud in marketing its Marlboro Light and Virginia Slims cigarettes. The court's majority said a judge can certify a case for class action under Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act only if the violation cited is "substantially similar" to an act or practice previously declared deceptive by the attorney general or a court. . . . Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, which was not part of the case, called the ruling outrageous. "I think this is a political decision by the court and has nothing to do with the merits," Claybrook said. "Consumers suffer the consequences of death and injury, and the court moves on behalf of business interests."

Class-action suit vs. Philip Morris denied

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 04:00:00 GMT

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.

MARRONE v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. (PDF)

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 04:00:00 GMT

{¶ 29} Although it appears that the FTC has neither permitted nor forbidden characterizations like “low” tar, Flanagan, 2005 WL 2769010 at *4-5, the information about average tar and nicotine levels used in the advertisements comes directly from testing practices that are “required or specifically permitted by federal trade commission orders [and] trade regulation rules and guides.” See R.C. 1345.11(B). Because the cigarette industry is highly regulated by the federal government, PMI was obligated to follow federal mandates and standards for light cigarettes. IV {¶ 30} The ultimate question in this litigation is whether, notwithstanding the FTC’s imprimatur on those testing methods, PMI used the data to deliberately deceive consumers into believing that Marlboro Lights and Virginia Slims Lights are safer or healthier than other cigarettes. That issue is not before us, and our opinion should not be read to suggest that we find that the conduct at issue was deceptive or otherwise violated Ohio law. The plaintiffs may be entitled to pursue class-action relief under Civ.R. 23; however, they have failed to identify any prior rule or court decision that would entitle them to pursue CSPA relief under R.C. 1345.09(B). {¶ 31} In conclusion, we hold that the court of appeals erred in determining that there had been a prior determination that conduct sufficiently similar to the alleged acts of PMI violated R.C. 1345.02 or 1345.03. We hold that to satisfy R.C. 1345.09(B), a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s alleged conduct is substantially similar to an act or practice that was previously declared to be deceptive. The plaintiffs do not meet that standard to qualify for classaction certification under R.C. 1345.09(B). Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. . . .

{¶ 44} As applied to acts or practices that allegedly violate generic but reasonably specific rules promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to R.C. 1345.05(B)(2), the substantially-similar test imposes an unworkable comparative analysis that effectively prevents consumers from using those generic rules as a basis for the relief that R.C. 1345.09(B) authorizes. The General Assembly would not have made rule violations a basis for R.C. 1345.09(B) actions had it intended that a substantially-similar test be used. Therefore, I dissent from the majority’s decision to that extent. . . . {¶ 50} In their totality, the foregoing provisions could doom appellees’ request for class certification as well as their underlying claim for relief. However, those are determinations that the trial court should make. Like the majority, I would reverse the class certification ordered, but I would remand the cause for further proceedings on the issue of class certification in relation to the substantiation requirement on which appellees rely.

PFEIFER, J., dissenting. {¶ 51} How much notice does a company need to know that it is not allowed to “ma[k]e a misleading statement of opinion on which the consumer [is] likely to rely to his detriment”? R.C. 1345.03(6). According to the majority opinion, R.C. 1345.09(B) requires that a company receive notice from a published court opinion or a rule of the Attorney General that a similar industry-specific practice is deceptive or unconscionable before a class-action lawsuit can be pursued. The majority opinion’s unconscionably narrow reading of R.C. 1345.09 severely limits the ability of consumers to bring a class-action lawsuit under Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”). . . . {¶ 56} In my opinion, selling a product as one thing, when it is in fact another, is sufficiently similar to selling a product as one thing, when it is in fact another. I would certify the class and allow the plaintiffs to proceed to trial. To do otherwise is to encourage everyone doing business in this state to engage in deceptive practices. I dissent.

Sales Practice Must Be ‘Substantially Similar’ to Banned Act or Practice to Support Class Action Suit : 2004-1824. Marrone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 2006-Ohio-2869.

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 04:00:00 GMT

Medina App. No. 03CA0120-M, 2004-Ohio-4874. Judgment reversed. Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and O'Donnell, JJ., concur. Grady and Lanzinger, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. Pfeifer, J., dissents. . . . A consumer may qualify to file a class action lawsuit against a business under Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) only if the business's alleged violation of the act is “substantially similar” to an act or practice previously declared to be deceptive in a published court decision or an attorney general's rule, under a ruling today by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The decision, authored by Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, reversed lower court rulings holding that Catherine Marrone and Greg and Eva Phillips of Medina had met the prerequisites to institute a class action suit against Philip Morris USA, Inc. (PMI) under the Ohio CSPA. In its opinion, the Court addressed the narrow issue of whether PMI had sufficient advance notice that its alleged conduct was deceptive. Marrone, Phillips and other individuals filed suit collectively seeking damages from PMI, alleging that the company had deceptively marketed “light” versions of its popular Marlboro and Virginia Slims brands as a safer “low tar” alternative to its “regular” cigarettes.

Case Number 2004-1824: Catherine S. Marrone et al. v. Philip Morris, USA, Inc., et al.

clerk@sconet.state.oh.us — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:00:00 GMT

08/25/05 Notice of recusal of Justice Resnick Y-

09/08/05 E-mail notification of assignment of Judge Thomas J. Grady, Second District Court of Appeals, for Justice Resnic . . . .

10/11/05 Oral Argument Held Y-

12/20/05 List of additional authorities Filed by: Philip Morris USA, Inc.

Justices to decide class action status in light cigarette lawsuit

Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:00:00 GMT

Ohio companies are siding with Philip Morris USA Inc. in a lawsuit over light cigarettes, saying success by the suing smokers would make the state a magnet for class action lawsuits of all kinds. At issue is the class action status granted two northeast Ohio smokers for their claim that the tobacco company knew cigarettes it marketed as having less tar and nicotine would be as dangerous as regular smokes. The cigarette maker has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to strike down the class action status, saying Ohio law requires a more specific warning from the state on a company's marketing practices before allowing such lawsuits. . . . The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Manufacturers Association and other trade groups warn that Ohio's economy may be at risk if the case is allowed to be a class action. . . . "Whether you're selling iPods or automobiles or gasoline or cigarettes, a knowing misrepresentation is clearly covered," Charles Saxbe, attorney for the smokers, said in arguments before the court in October. Philip Morris attorney Irene Keyse-Walker called that an unfair characterization of her argument. She said the cigarette case is different from the car case because the performance of the cigarettes depends on how the consumer uses them. Ohio Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton told Saxbe she was struggling with his argument. "This is going to affect every single business," she said. "We have a very specific rule, and you're urging a very general construction of it."

AUDIP: Supreme Court Oral Argument Streaming Video Archives: Oral Argument Streaming Video Archives

Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:00:00 GMT

Oct. 11, 2005 Marrone et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., Case no. 2004-1824

Tobacco Industry Suffers Setbacks In 'Lights' Litigation

christina.cheddar@dowjones.com (Christina Cheddar Berk, Dow Jones Newswires) — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:00:00 GMT

So-called "lights" litigation against the tobacco industry doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. This week, Altria Group Inc.'s (MO) Philip Morris USA suffered setbacks in two lights cases, which seek refunds for smokers who claim the cigarette maker misrepresented the health risks of light cigarette brands such as Marlboro Lights. On Wednesday, Ohio's 9th District Court of Appeals upheld the class certification in a case brought by Catherine Marrone. . . . The Ohio decision followed on the heels of another ruling on Tuesday by Missouri Circuit Court Judge Michael David in St. Louis reaffirming the class certification on a case, which was brought by Dayna Craft. . . . Those tracking developments in lights cigarette cases continue to watch the Price case in Illinois closely.

Seville woman's lawsuit vs. tobacco firm revived: Class-action dispute open to consumers in Medina, other counties

cwebb@thebeaconjournal.com (Craig Webb / Beacon Journal staff writer) — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:00:00 GMT

A lawsuit filed by a Seville woman charging the Philip Morris Cos. was not truthful about tar and nicotine levels in some of its cigarettes has been given new life. The 9th District Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld Medina County Common Pleas Judge James L. Kimbler's certification of the dispute as a class-action lawsuit open to any consumer in Medina County and adjoining counties who may have purchased Virginia Slims Lights and Marlboro Lights. Catherine S. Marrone filed a lawsuit in 1999 and again in 2000 charging the tobacco company misled smokers about the health risks of light cigarettes.

Seville woman files suit against Philip Morris: Cigarette maker seeks class action dismissal

Wed, 26 Jul 2000 04:00:00 GMT

The Philip Morris Companies asked a Medina County Common Pleas Judge yesterday to dismiss a suit against them by a Seville woman who says the company lied about the tar and nicotine levels in their cigarettes. The class action suit filed by Catherine S. Marrone alleges that the tobacco companies made false misrepresentations about Virginia Slims Lights in its advertisements. She claims the defendants misled smokers as to the health risks of smoking light cigarettes. She claims she was not told that the cigarette makers rigged tests to measure tar and nicotine to obtain favorable readings. . . She is seeking a refund of the money that Ohio consumers spent on the cigarettes and damages under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Lawsuit targets tobacco firm over `rigged tests': Medina County filing says Philip Morris lied about `light' cigarettes

Tue, 09 Nov 1999 05:00:00 GMT

A class-action lawsuit alleging that Philip Morris Cos. lied about the tar and nicotine levels in a light cigarette brand has been filed in Medina County Common Pleas Court. Akron attorney A. Russell Smith filed the suit yesterday on behalf of Catherine S. Marrone of Seville ``and others.'' The complaint alleges that Marrone, who smoked a half pack a day of Virginia Slims Light for nine years, wasn't told that Phillip Morris rigged the tests to measure tar and nicotine to obtain favorable readings. . . The suit seeks a refund of the money that Ohio consumers spent on Virginia Slims Light, the profits Philip Morris made from selling the cigarettes, and triple damages under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. . . Smith also filed two similar lawsuits in Summit County yesterday against R.J. Reynolds, the manufacturer of Salem Lights, and Brown and Williamson, which makes Kool Lights and Kool Milds.