ADVERTISEMENT



Google       
Call (866) 635-2689 for a free Personal Injury evaluation by attorney in your area.

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> InjuryBoard

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Personal Injury Law

: InjuryBoard

Supreme Court Rules Smokers Can Sue Over Light Cigarettes

By Jane Akre

ADVERTISEMENTS

Way cleared by the Supreme Court to sue over light cigarettes under state consumer laws.

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 Akre

Full post as published by InjuryBoard on December 15, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0144 secs (new cache)