|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
Share |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Insurance Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
|
![]() |
Massachusetts Okays Cigarette Class Action Against Philip MorrisSupreme Court holds that federal laws don't preempt state consumer protections |
|||||||||||||
|
By Jon Hood March 19, 2009
The plaintiffs argue that so-called "light" cigarettes ultimately provide consumers with the same amount of tar and nicotine as regular cigarettes, since smokers compensate for the lower levels by taking longer, deeper puffs. Philip Morris argued that the Massachusetts laws were preempted by federal legislation (when federal and state laws clash, federal law always takes precedence). Specifically, the defendants said that the consumer protection laws were preempted by the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, which forbids states from regulating health-related cigarette advertising. They also argued that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) allows the use of terms like "light" and "low tar" on cigarette packaging. The court rejected both arguments. The decision comes on the heels of a similar opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court in December. In Altria v. Good, the high court held that the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not preempt a Maine unfair business practice law. In that suit, too, the plaintiffs claimed that they compensated for lower levels of tar and nicotine by inhaling more deeply, and for longer periods of time. That decision gave the go-ahead to more than a half-dozen cigarette class actions. However, these suits can still face legal hurdles. In April 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a similar suit, claiming that it was impossible to generalize about why smokers chose light cigarettes. The court surmised that consumers might be "unaware of that representation, preferred the taste of lights, or chose lights as an expression of personal style." There, the court ruled that any suits would have to proceed individually, not as a class. The Second Circuit decision also cited a study finding that smokers continued to buy light cigarettes, even after a 2001 National Cancer Institute study found that they were no safer than standard cigarettes. Philip Morris insists in a statement that the plaintiffs' claims are still weak. The company argues that consumers paid the same price for Marlboro Lights as they would have for "full-flavored" Marlboros. Additionally, the company says that many class members are still smoking Marlboro Lights, undermining their claim that they were damaged by the advertising. In 1998, Philip Morris signed a settlement agreement with 46 states, in which they agreed to pay roughly $200 billion over 25 years to address health-care reimbursements and other expenses. The settlement also contained restrictions on cigarette advertising, including a ban on logo-branded clothing and cartoon characters like the late Joe Camel. Report Your Experience
|
|||||||||||||
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
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. |
|