Complain about a product or service

High Court Hands Philip Morris A Defeat

June 11, 2007

• Bank Stopped From Enabling Online Tobacco Sales • Study Finds Big Tobacco Exploiting Ad Ban Loophole • Do Tobacco Firms Cut Menthol to Hook Young Smokers? • Wegmans, DeCicco Markets Ditch Cigarettes • Secondhand Smoke Linked To Hospital Admissions • Anti-Smoking Drug Chantix Linked to Seizures, Heart Problems, Diabetes • Congress Moves To Tighten Tobacco Controls • Toddlers Affected Most By Secondhand Smoke at Home • Tobacco 'Innovations' Aimed at Younger Smokers • Heart Attacks Drop After Smoking Ban in Italy • Physician Highlights Hazards of Bartending • Anti-Smoking Suit Targets Restaurants • Smoking Linked to Sleep Disturbances • States Challenge R.J. Reynolds Cigarette Ads • Smokers Cost Taxpayers $10 Billion • Secondhand Smoke a Serious Health Risk • Would Women Rather Smoke Than Get Fat? • Kroger Agrees to Curb Tobacco Sales to Minors • No More Free Smokes in California • Second-Hand Smoke Tied to Lower Test Scores • Secondhand Smoke Bad for Pets • Researchers Link Smoking To Dementia • Smoking Turns On Genes -- Permanently • Bill Targets Online Cigarette Sellers • UK Tries Nicotine Patches on Pregnant Smokers • More Toxins Found in Smokers' Children --- • More about Smoking & Health

The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a setback to tobacco giant Philip Morris in its defense against a class action lawsuit. The court ruled in a procedural matter, denying Philip Morris’ request to move the case from an Arkansas state court, where it was filed, to a federal court.

The case was filed on behalf of two women from Arkansas who claim the company engaged in false and misleading marketing when it introduced the low tar and nicotine brands, Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights. Philip Morris had argued that most class action cases of this type are decided in federal court.

Initially, it looked like it might work out that way. The tobacco company was successful in moving the case and even won an appeal before a federal appeals court. But the U.S. Justice Department intervened, arguing that the case belonged before a state court.

In today’s ruling, the high court reversed the appeals court decision. In his majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said that federal regulation and oversight of a business activity does not automatically put that business’ activities under federal judicial review.

Two years ago anti-smoking health researchers released a study of internal tobacco company documents they said showed cigarette manufacturers made a conscious effort to get women hooked on their products, by marketing low tar and nicotine cigarettes. The researchers based their conclusions on documents released by tobacco companies under a 1998 court settlement.

The researchers, writing in the June 2005 issue of Addiction, said cigarettes were designed to cater to women's desires to look thin. They created "slims" and "lights," the researchers claim, with women in mind.

They said low-tar and nicotine cigarettes were developed in the 1970s, specifically to allay many women's concerns about the health effects of smoking. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined that there is no safe cigarette.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.