The CBS Evening News (12/15, story 6, 0:25, Couric) reported, "A big defeat today for big tobacco. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that smokers may sue cigarette makers over marketing that allegedly is fraudulent."
The Wall Street Journal (12/16, Bravin) adds that the ruling strikes "a blow against a broad effort by U.S. corporations to limit their exposure to suits filed under state law." The court rejected Altria Group Inc.'s "claim that federal cigarette-labeling laws...pre-empt consumer lawsuits." The suit alleges that Altria's Philip Morris USA unit "misled consumers into believing that light cigarettes, which contain less tar than regular varieties, were less dangerous to smoke."
On the front page of its Business Day section, the New York Times (12/16, B1, Liptak) notes that the plaintiffs, "three smokers from Maine," sought "compensation for economic rather than medical harm," arguing that "they had overpaid for cigarettes based on deceptive advertisements." But, "the question before the court was not whether the use of the term 'light' amounted to fraud." Rather the court considered "whether plaintiffs should be allowed to sue at all given the federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act." The measure says that "'no requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under state law with respect to the advertising or promotion' of cigarettes."
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his majority opinion that "such suits...are 'predicated on the duty not to deceive' and are separate from federal oversight of cigarette testing or the warnings printed on cigarette packs," the Washington Post (12/16, A2, Barnes) adds. The court's decision may open "tobacco companies to what could be billions of dollars in liability in court cases nationwide." According to some analysts, "perhaps the biggest legal liability facing the industry" now is "what the tobacco companies had once called a more 'healthy' cigarette."
The Los Angeles Times (12/15, Savage) reported that in the past, "'light' and 'low tar' cigarettes were seen as safer because their filters block more tar and nicotine than those of regular cigarettes." Recent studies, however, "have shown that in practice, smokers tend to take larger and more frequent puffs with these cigarettes," and the lawsuits allege that "the cigarette makers have known for years that their 'light' cigarettes are not safer." The ruling came "three weeks after the Federal Trade Commission rescinded guidelines about tar and nicotine levels that let the tobacco industry pitch cigarettes as 'light' and possibly less dangerous to health," USA Today (12/16, Biskupic) notes.
Bloomberg News (12/15, Stohr) added, "In broadening consumer rights, the court divided along familiar lines," with "justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg" forming the majority.
The AP (12/16) comments that the Court's "decision was at odds with recent anti-consumer rulings that limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power." The "court in 1992 ruled the warning labels on cigarette packs blocked such legal claims," the Baltimore Sun (12/16, Savage) points out. Federal law has mandated that "cigarette makers put a health warning on each pack of cigarettes" since 1965.
"The ruling is an important victory for injured consumers and consumer advocate groups who say it will make it easier for local residents to recover damages from national companies involved in alleged deceptive practices," the Christian Science Monitor (12/16, Richey) notes. But, "the decision is a setback for business groups that have been urging the high court to expand the application of preemption principles to help short-circuit state-based consumer lawsuits." BBC News (12/15) and the Boston Herald (12/16, Doyle) also covered the story.
Ruling seen as victory for possible solicitor general candidate. In the Wall Street Journal (12/15) Health Blog, Alicia Mundy wrote that the "Supreme Court's decision today that smokers can sue cigarette makers over labels that promised lower tar and nicotine is a victory for trial lawyers as much as consumers." Mundy noted, however, that "the decision is a particularly sweet win for David Frederick," who represented the plaintiffs in the suit. His "name has been floated for solicitor general, and he has been interviewed by members of the transition team for President-elect Barack Obama." Frederick "is part of a group of lawyers on the Obama legal team looking into potential changes in regulations affecting court issues, including preemption."
Copyright © 2008 by Custom Briefings | 11190 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 130 | Reston, VA 20191