Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> InjuryBoard
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Personal Injury Law
: InjuryBoardSupreme Court Rules Smokers Can Sue Over Light Cigarettes
By Jane Akre
.jpg)
LEARN MORE
IMAGE SOURCE: Wikimedia Commons/ Marlboro cigarettes/ author: bachmont
|
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against cigarette makers this morning could mean billions of dollars to smokers who thought "light" cigarettes were safer.
In a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled that smokers can sue tobacco companies for fraudulent advertising claims over light-branded cigarettes.
This ruling clears the way for several class-action suits to move forward.
Ruling against Altria Group Inc's Philip Morris USA (PM) unit, the court ruled for a group of Maine smokers who sued under a state law to stop PM from advertising its light cigarettes. The high court held that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act does not bar or preempt these state court lawsuits.
"When Congress enacted the Labeling Act, the 1969 Labeling Act, it gave no intention whatsoever to immunize cigarette makers for the false statements that they made in violation of anti-deception in the marketplace rules," said David Frederick, lawyer for the Maine smokers.
The case is pegged on PM's Marlboro Light and Cambridge Light brands and advertising that promised their "light" qualities and "lowered tar and nicotine" features.
The Maine smokers sued saying the advertising and labeling was deceptive. They claimed that smokers took in deeper puffs and kept the smoke in their lungs for longer periods of time or smoked more cigarettes.
A lower court ruled against them saying they had no standing under state law to file such a claim.
But the First Circuit reversed the decision saying they could proceed under the Maine state law, the Unfair Trade Practices Act that forbids deceptive advertising.
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens, said the makers of consumer products have a "duty not to deceive" the public in advertising or marketing their products, and the federal warning law does not shield the tobacco industry from being sued under these state laws for "making fraudulent statements."
In the past, the court has ruled that the warning label on cigarette packs blocked such legal claims. #
Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jane AkreFull post as published by InjuryBoard on December 15, 2008 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Discouraging Union Organizers
Strict work place rules
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
VA Sets New Benefit Rules for Agent Orange-Related Ilnesses
Agent Orange-Related Ilnesses VA Sets New Benefit Rules
FDA
Warns About Electronic Cigarettes
Kumho Tire
Recalls 36,292 Light Truck and All TerrainTires
Immigration Fees
Nationwide Class Action Gets Green Light
British Airways Lost-Luggage
Class-Action Gets Green Light
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million

Court sides with state-based suits against 'light' cigarettes
Supreme Court Rules Against Tobacco Companies in Light Cigarette Litigation
Supreme Court Allows Light Cigarette Case
Supreme Court OKs Cigarette Suits
SCt Allows Suits about Light Cigarettes







