The Federal Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act - Altria Lose 'Light' Cigarette Case
http://www.lawsays.net/articles/1662/1/The-Federal-Cigarette-Labelling-and-Advertising-Act---Altria-Lose-Light-Cigarette-Case/Page1.html
john mce
John Mce writes on behalf of WARC, which is a premier provider of information and insight to the global marketing, advertising, media and research industries. WARC Online, its website is the world's largest source of marketing insight. By john mce
Published on 12/18/2008
The US Supreme Court ruled against the Altria Group in a case brought because they advertised a new brand of cigarettes as 'light'. In a 5-4 vote it was ruled that tobacco firms can be sued under state law for deceptive advertising of cigarettes, adding that manufacturers are not protected by federal labelling law.
The US Supreme Court ruled against the Altria Group in a case brought because they advertised a new brand of cigarettes as 'light'. In a 5-4 vote it was ruled that tobacco firms can be sued under state law for deceptive advertising of cigarettes, adding that manufacturers are not protected by federal labelling law.
The case seeks to recover the money Maine smokers spent on Philip Morris's Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights in November 2002, plus damages. The law suit evoked an unfair trade practises law, and was approved by federal court in Boston.
Philip Morris had contended that the lawsuit was pre-empted by a pair of federal cigarette-labelling laws enacted in the 1960s, which require each package of cigarettes to carry a specific warning label while barring additional state regulation "based on smoking and health".
The decision means tobacco companies will have to defend themselves from class-action lawsuits filed in the state of Maine, which could lead to further cases throughout the United States. It was just three Main residents who sued Altria Group and its Philip Morris unit on behalf of all smokers of Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights in the state. They must now prove that the use of the words "light" and "low-tar" in advertising violated the state's anti-fraud laws.
The Supreme Court was expected to rule in favour of the tobacco companies, because in recent cases it had ruled against the state regulation of businesses, in favour of federal power.
The lawsuit said that cigarettes like Marlboro and Cambridge Lights are deceptively designed and marketed, and that a smoker of those brands consumes the same amount of tar and nicotine as a smoker of regular cigarettes.
Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, said in the court's opinion the lawsuit can proceed. Stevens said neither the Federal Cigarette Labelling Act nor the US Federal Trade Commission's action in this area pre-empted the fraud claim under state law. He also said the court only ruled on whether the cases can proceed, not necessarily the merits of the claim. The smokers must still prove the company's use of the term "light" and "lowered tar" violated the state deceptive practises law.
Charles Norton, Vice Fund portfolio manager said the ruling removed one piece of defence used in cases involving light cigarettes, but does not signal a shift in tobacco litigation. "In spite of today's ruling" he said, "I expect the future of cigarette litigation to continue to move in the direction that it has in recent years, in favour of the industry."
The case seeks to recover the money Maine smokers spent on Philip Morris's Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights in November 2002, plus damages. The law suit evoked an unfair trade practises law, and was approved by federal court in Boston.
Philip Morris had contended that the lawsuit was pre-empted by a pair of federal cigarette-labelling laws enacted in the 1960s, which require each package of cigarettes to carry a specific warning label while barring additional state regulation "based on smoking and health".
The decision means tobacco companies will have to defend themselves from class-action lawsuits filed in the state of Maine, which could lead to further cases throughout the United States. It was just three Main residents who sued Altria Group and its Philip Morris unit on behalf of all smokers of Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights in the state. They must now prove that the use of the words "light" and "low-tar" in advertising violated the state's anti-fraud laws.
The Supreme Court was expected to rule in favour of the tobacco companies, because in recent cases it had ruled against the state regulation of businesses, in favour of federal power.
The lawsuit said that cigarettes like Marlboro and Cambridge Lights are deceptively designed and marketed, and that a smoker of those brands consumes the same amount of tar and nicotine as a smoker of regular cigarettes.
Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, said in the court's opinion the lawsuit can proceed. Stevens said neither the Federal Cigarette Labelling Act nor the US Federal Trade Commission's action in this area pre-empted the fraud claim under state law. He also said the court only ruled on whether the cases can proceed, not necessarily the merits of the claim. The smokers must still prove the company's use of the term "light" and "lowered tar" violated the state deceptive practises law.
Charles Norton, Vice Fund portfolio manager said the ruling removed one piece of defence used in cases involving light cigarettes, but does not signal a shift in tobacco litigation. "In spite of today's ruling" he said, "I expect the future of cigarette litigation to continue to move in the direction that it has in recent years, in favour of the industry."