Legal

State

U.S. court reinstates Alaska smoker case versus Altria (AK)
A U.S. appeals court reinstated an Alaska lawsuit that was filed against Altria Group Inc's Philip Morris USA and an Alaska tobacco retailer by the survivor of a deceased smoker. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s state product liability claims were not preempted by federal law and should have been tried in state court. Initially, a lower court dismissed the case for failure to bring a claim under federal law. Upon appeal, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the case did not belong in federal court, and instructed that it be remanded to Alaska state court for further proceedings. Read more about the court’s reinstatement here.

Philip Morris may have to pay for diagnostic tests for smokers (MA)
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that tobacco companies may be ordered to provide diagnostic lung cancer screenings to smokers. Prior to this ruling, plaintiffs were responsible for providing proof of injury before the defendant could be required to pay for diagnostic tests. The court noted that the state’s tort law, developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, failed to recognize that injuries caused by toxic substances may not be readily apparent. This ruling will allow a 2006 federal class action suit, in which smokers sued Philip Morris USA to cover the cost of their diagnostic lung scans, to proceed under state law. However, a legal representative from Altria, Philip Morris’s parent company, noted that federal and state courts tend to reject class certification of smokers’ claims for medical monitoring. Read more here.

Cancer society joins smoking ban battle (SD)
A judge has approved the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) motion to participate in the case that addresses the issue of whether the statewide smoking ban that was passed in March is subject to a popular vote. Opponents of the smoking ban filed a petition to refer the law to a public vote next year. ACS argues that the smoking ban should be in effect now and not put to vote because of the immediate health benefits. The court will decide whether the smokefree law should go into effect now, or whether implementation should be stalled until the lawsuit is settled or the public vote is held. The trial is scheduled to begin in mid-November. Click here to read more.

top

National

Cigarette makers plan U.S. Supreme Court appeal
Altria Group Inc., Reynolds American Inc., and other U.S. cigarette makers signaled that they will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a May 22 ruling upholding a 2006 lawsuit that found the companies guilty of misleading the public about the dangers of secondhand smoke. The ruling also barred the companies from labeling and advertising cigarettes as “light” or “low-tar.” After the U.S. Court of Appeals declined in September to reconsider the case, the companies submitted a motion asking the appeals court not to enforce its May ruling until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear their appeal. Read more about the tobacco companies plan to appeal here.

Eleven health & consumer groups urge federal court to reject tobacco companies’ lawsuit against FDA tobacco regulation law
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids announced in a press release that eleven public health and consumer advocacy organizations have filed a friend of the court (amicus) brief to encourage a federal court to reject a challenge from tobacco companies of a new policy requiring FDA approval of advertising claims regarding “modified-risk” tobacco products. The amicus brief argues that the law was tailored to allow companies their First Amendment rights to free speech. It is also noted that the new law is consistent with the FDA’s pre-approval of marketing claims about other products. Finally, the brief advises the court to take into account the tobacco industry’s history of misleading the public about “light” and “low-tar” cigarettes. Read more here, or click here for a PDF of the brief. Related: FDA defends against cig makers' challenge of law The FDA responded to the tobacco industry’s legal challenge with a similar defense of the policy. The FDA’s response states that the law protects the public’s health without violating the companies’ First Amendment rights. Click here for more information.

FDA sued again on flavored cigarette ban
The National Association of Tobacco Outlets reports that BBK Tobacco & Foods has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the FDA ban on flavored cigarette rolling papers sold in separate packages. The company claims the new FDA law banning flavored cigarettes does not does not explicitly extend the ban to flavored cigarette rolling papers packaged separately. The company hopes for a ruling that the FDA does not have the authority to regulate its flavored rolling papers. A similar lawsuit was filed last month by Kretek International, an importer of clove-flavored cigars. Click here to read more about the new lawsuit.

top

International

Ontario sues tobacco makers for health costs; Companies call move hypocritical (Canada)
Ontario has become the latest jurisdiction to take legal action seeking repayment from tobacco companies of the costs of smokers’ healthcare. The Ontario government is seeking $50 billion from several Canadian firms and their parent companies, stating that this figure is directly tied to the amount the government has spent since 1955 to treat illnesses related to tobacco use. Tobacco companies have denounced the lawsuit as hypocritical because of the tax money the government already collects, but the government argues that the healthcare costs related to smoking are considerably greater than the amount collected in taxes. Find out more here. Click here to read a press release from the Canadian Cancer Society that lauds the government for filing the lawsuit and outlines the benefits of the litigation. Click here to read about other provinces joining the lawsuit.

top

Back to Table of Contents