Legal

National

Top court lets smokers sue for fraud
The Supreme Court ruled in December that tobacco companies can be sued for misleading advertising claims that have tricked smokers into believing that “light” and “low-tar” cigarettes reduce the health risks of smoking. The case was not a matter of whether the advertisements were misleading; rather, the court determined whether federal laws pre-empt state laws. In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that federal laws requiring cigarette packaging and advertising to carry health warnings do not protect companies against being sued under state consumer protection laws that prohibit false advertising. This ruling gives the green light for numerous legal actions against tobacco companies. Not only can individual smokers sue for the fraudulent advertising, but the verdict also puts the tobacco industry on the defensive in a racketeering lawsuit which is pending in a federal appeals court. For more information, click here. Click here to read the Supreme Court opinion.

Supreme Court ponders how to finally settle Philip Morris case
In an ongoing volley of legal proceedings with the Oregon Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide for a third time whether Philip Morris must pay an Oregon smoker’s wife a record-setting $79.5 million punitive damages payment. In 2003 and 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the payout would have to be lessened to comply with restrictions on the value of punitive damage awards. However, the Oregon court did not abide by the 2007 ruling, upholding the full payment on the grounds that Philip Morris could not challenge the verdict because the company had violated state procedural laws. The issue currently being decided by the Supreme Court is whether the Oregon Supreme Court reacted improperly by going against the 2007 ruling, or whether it was correct in enforcing the state procedural law. If the Oregon court is found to be in error, Philip Morris would receive a new trial. It was widely assumed that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case a third time to reprimand the Oregon court for its failure to adhere to the 2007 ruling; however, justices’ responses to the initial arguments signify that the court may now favor the Oregon court’s position. A Supreme Court ruling is expected by summer 2009. Click here to read more, or click here to view a brief timeline of the history of the case.

First Florida tobacco trial begins in Broward (FL)
After a Florida class action suit against cigarette companies was thrown out in a 2006 court decision, the cases are now being tried individually. The first of these trials started in early December, with a woman whose husband died in 1997 after years of smoking Benson & Hedges cigarettes, which are made by Philip Morris. Of the 700,000 smokers who were involved in the initial class action suit, 8,000 have filed individual cases in state and federal courts. To be awarded financial compensation from tobacco companies, individual plaintiffs must first prove that they would have been part of the class action suit by demonstrating that the smoker was addicted to cigarettes and that their death was related to cigarette smoking. Read more here.

Wausau restaurant not exempt from smoking ban (WI)
The local smokefree law in Wausau, Wisconsin prohibits smoking in restaurants to protect the general public, but private nonprofit clubs are exempted. An appeals court recently ruled that a Wausau restaurant owner cannot skirt the city’s smokefree law by charging patrons $1 to join his “private club.” The restaurant owner disputed the constitutionality of the city ordinance, arguing that the law violated the equal protection clause by differentiating between restaurants and private establishments. The city contended that as a for-profit business, the restaurant did not fit the criteria to be considered a private club. The appeals court upheld the ruling that the private club exemption is acceptable because it furthers the purpose of the law by limiting the amount of establishments that can allow smoking. The panel of judges also concluded that the restaurant was effectively open to the public, which goes against its claim of being a private club. The restaurant owner plans to appeal the decision in the state Supreme Court. Click here for more information.

Judge upholds ban on drugstore tobacco sales (CA)
San Francisco's ban on tobacco sales in drugstores doesn't violate a cigarette company's constitutional right to advertise its products, a federal judge ruled Friday in rejecting Philip Morris' attempt to halt enforcement of the ordinance. Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland  rules that the law prohibits conduct of tobacco sales, not speech about tobacco which  Phillip Morris is argued that the ban interfered with their ability to communicate with their customers.  The ordinance, the first of its kind in the nation, prohibits sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products at the city's nearly 60 drugstores. To read more about this case, click here. To learn more about Phillip Morris’s appeal, click here.

top

Back to Table of Contents