Legal

National

U.S. appeals court agrees tobacco companies lied
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a 2006 ruling that found tobacco companies guilty of racketeering. The court ruled that tobacco companies systematically misled consumers for decades about the health hazards of smoking, and rejected tobacco companies’ claim that there was no scientific consensus about the health effects of smoking. Regarding the tobacco companies’ deceptive marketing claims, the verdict states that the, “Defendants knew of their falsity at the time and made the statements with the intent to deceive.” The court upheld an order requiring tobacco companies to place health warnings on cigarette packages and publish “corrective statements” on their corporate websites, in full-page newspaper ads, and on television ads. In one loss for anti-smoking groups, the court also upheld the decision not to hold companies responsible for the costs of smoking cessation programs. Click here for more information.

TCLC Legal Update: Spring 2009
The latest issue of the Legal Update, published by the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium (TCLC), includes a summary of the new TCLC law synopsis on flavored tobacco products. Information is provided about the recent tobacco tax to fund SCHIP and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which the House passed in April. Additionally, the newsletter presents an outline of recent court cases, including smoker lawsuits against tobacco companies, the legal battle over Ohio’s Master Settlement Funds, and the ongoing tobacco-free pharmacy case in San Francisco. Click here to download a PDF of the Spring Legal Update, or click here to visit the TCLC website.

Calif. Top court revives class action against tobacco industry (CA)
The California Supreme court ruled that consumer class action lawsuits can proceed, even if plaintiffs are unable to prove that every plaintiff in a suit was harmed by fraudulent advertising. This decision clarifies a state law, Measure 64, by affirming the right under the state’s unfair competition law of average citizens to file class action lawsuits as a representative of the group, rather than requiring a state official such as an attorney general to file such a suit. This ruling has revived a major class action lawsuit against the tobacco industry for deceptive marketing practices. If the case is won, it could result in a jury award of billions of dollars to all Californians who saw tobacco advertisements that made claims about safety and purchased cigarettes between 1993 and 2001. Read more here. Click here to read more.

Court challenge dropped (IA)
A coalition of Iowa bar owners recently dropped their lawsuit against the Iowa Smokefree Air Act, which bans smoking in nearly all public places. Choose Freedom Iowa had filed the suit last July 1, the day the smoke-free law took effect, calling the law unconstitutional. A spokesman for the Iowa Attorney General stated that this case had been the only direct attack on the constitutionality of this law. Last year, the coalition also sought a temporary injunction against enforcement of the ban that was not granted. The bar owners still intend to fight the smoking ban, but the group has chosen to shift their attention to other related lawsuits. Click here to read more.

Justices to consider NY suit on net tobacco (NY)
The Supreme Court will hear a case that will determine whether New York City can sue internet tobacco retailers for selling untaxed cigarettes. New York has alleged that the online tobacco companies are violating federal racketeering laws that require the companies to disclose information about their customers to state officials for tax collection purposes. New York City has the highest cigarette tax in the country at $4.25 a pack, and stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue annually to internet tobacco sales. A New York circuit court ruled against the internet tobacco retailers in 2008. The Supreme Court will hear the case, Hemi Group v. New York, this fall. Click here for more information.

Pa. judge says Camel ad violated tobacco’s pledge (PA)
A Philadelphia judge has ordered that the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company pay $302,000 or run a full-page anti-smoking ad that would be circulated throughout Pennsylvania. The tobacco company was sued for its placement of a rock-and-roll-themed advertisement for Camel cigarettes next to a four-page spread containing cartoons in Rolling Stone magazine. While the cigarette company did not create the cartoon ads, it did not reject the placement of the Camel ad next to the cartoons. The judge decided that this was a violation of the Master Settlement Agreement, which prohibits the use of cartoons in tobacco marketing. Similar cases are awaiting rulings in Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and New York. Click here to read more.

top

International

Class action suit filed over menthol cigarettes (Israel)
Amos Hausner, an attorney in Israel has initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals who developed lung cancer after smoking menthol cigarettes. He is representing 3000 menthol cigarette smokers in the country who developed lung cancer over the past seven years, which is the timeframe that manufacturers can be held responsible based on Israel’s statute of limitations. The suit is against Dubek, which is Israel’s largest tobacco manufacturer. Hausner says that Israeli law forbids adding foreign ingredients to cigarettes, and that companies did not warn consumers that menthol flavoring makes tobacco more addictive. This case is believed to be the first class action lawsuit that deals specifically with menthol cigarettes. Click here to read more.

top

Back to Table of Contents