NEWS    RECALLS    COMPLAINT FORM    SCAM ALERTS   RESOURCES  
Small Claims Guide   Class Actions   Lemon Laws   FAQ   Newsletters  
Share


Complain about a product or service

Automotive    Education    Employment    Electronics    Family    Finance    Health    Homeowners    Insurance    Pets    Shopping    Travel     Print This     Email This    



NEWS   Latest |  Archives |  Auto |  Cells, etc. |  Computers |  Financial |  Health |  Homeowners |  Parents |  Privacy |  Scams |  Seniors |  Travel

High Court Hands Philip Morris A Defeat





June 11, 2007


Companies Warned Against Marketing Illegal Flavored Cigarettes
Study: Just One Cigarette Can Harm Young Healthy Adults
Smoking Bans Cut Heart Attack Risks Associated With Secondhand Smoke
FDA Bans Candy- and Fruit-Flavored Cigarettes
Heart Attack Rates Drop After Smoking Bans
Oregon Sues Electronic Cigarette Maker
Oregon Halts Sale Of Electronic Cigarettes
Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes
Turning The Tables On Big Tobacco
Senate Approves Bill For FDA Tobacco Regulation
Florida Smoker's Widow Awarded $30 Million
Court Finds Tobacco Companies Lied About Smoking Dangers
California Reinstates Tobacco Fraud Class Action
---
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.

Share

Follow us on Twitter.

FREE CONSUMER NEWSLETTERS

The Daily Consumer
Afternoons M-F

Sign up now!


Consumer News & Alerts
Every Sunday

Sign up now!





CONSUMER NEWS

SAFETY RECALLS

Back to the top |

Advertisement


Custom Search
AUTOMOTIVE
• Dealers
• Manufacturers
• Service
• Extended Warranties
• Lemon Laws
• Recalls
• Tires
• Transporters

FAMILY
• Aging
• Children, Parenting
• Recalls
• Dating
• Education
• Entertainment
• Pets
• Weddings
FINANCE
• Annuities
• Banks
• Credit Cards
• Debt Collection
• Debt Counseling
• Insurance
• Investing
• Loans
• Mortgages
• Payday Loans
• Student Loans
• Tax Prep

HEALTH
• Doctors
• Drugs, Pharmacies
• Health Clubs
• Hearing Care
• Hospitals
• Nursing Homes
• Nutrition, Diets
• Vision Care
• Weight Loss
HOUSE & HOME
• Appliances
• Cookware
• Furniture
• Home Improvements
• Lawn & Garden
• Movers
• Pools & Spas
• Realtors, Rental Agents
• Recalls
• Utilities

ELECTRONICS
• Cable TV/DBS
• Cameras
• Cell Phones
• Computers
• Home Electronics
• Internet Access
• Local Phone Service
• Long Distance
• VoIP
SHOPPING
• In-Home
• Online
• Retail Stores
• Sporting Goods
• Supermarkets
• Telemarketers

TRAVEL
• Airlines
• Bus Lines
• Car Rental
• Cruises
• Hotels
• Travel Agents
• Trains

RESOURCES
• Class Actions
• Complaint Form
• Small Claims Guide
• Lemon Laws
CONSUMER NEWS
• Latest News
• Automotive
• Telecom
• Financial
• Health
• Homeowners
• Scams
• Seniors
• Travel
• More ...

RECALLS
• Automotive
• Children's Products
• Drugs
• Food
• Household Products
• Sporting Goods

ABOUT US
• FAQ
• Privacy Policy
• Advertise With Us
• Newsroom
• Syndication
• Terms of Use

Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.    The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission.