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

Massachusetts Okays Cigarette Class Action Against Philip Morris

Supreme Court holds that federal laws don't preempt state consumer protections





By Jon Hood
ConsumerAffairs.com

March 19, 2009


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 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled that smokers can pursue misleading advertising by cigarette manufacturers under the state's deceptive marketing laws. The decision clears the way for a 10-year-old lawsuit against Philip Morris, claiming that Marlboro's use of "light" and "low tar" branding for certain cigarettes was deceptive.

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
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.