December 16, 2008
Supreme Court Allows Suits Over Cigarette Marketing
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON — Tobacco companies suffered a defeat in the Supreme Court on Monday when the justices ruled that the companies can be sued by smokers who contend they were deceived by advertisements promoting “light” cigarettes.
In its 5-to-4 ruling, the court did not state that such advertising is, in fact, misleading. Rather, it concluded that lawsuits accusing the cigarette-makers of fraudulent conduct can proceed.
The ruling was a victory for a group of plaintiffs from Maine whose suit accused the tobacco companies of violating the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act by fraudulently advertising that their “light” cigarettes delivered far less tar and nicotine than regular brands.
The plaintiffs contend that the tobacco companies knew that habitual smokers who turned to “light” cigarettes would typically inhale more deeply to make up for the feeling they missed from the old-fashioned unfiltered cigarettes. The suit was filed as a class-action claim on behalf of all smokers of Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights cigarettes, made by Philip Morris.
The defendants, Altria and its Philip Morris USA unit, tried to get the suit thrown out by relying on the federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, which states 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 that follow federal labeling requirements.
A federal district court sided with the tobacco companies, finding that the federal labeling act pre-empted the state law. But the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court, concluding that the federal labeling act “neither expressly nor impliedly pre-empts” the smokers’ fraud claim.
“The merits of the dispute are not before us,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote at the beginning of the majority decision, which was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
To win their suit, the decision emphasized, the complaining smokers still have to prove that the companies’ “use of ‘light’ and ‘lowered tar’ descriptors in fact violated the state deceptive practices statute.” But even though not ruling on the merits of such suits, the Supreme Court delivered a victory to smokers who claim to be aggrieved.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent asserting that, contrary to the majority’s interpretation of the law and events, the smokers’ claims under state law ought to be “expressly pre-empted” by the federal labeling act. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the dissent.
Altria contended that it could still prevail in lawsuits accusing it of fraud. “We continue to view these cases as manageable, and the company will assert many of the strong defenses used successfully in the past to defend us against this very type of lawsuit,” Murray Garnick, the company’s senior vice president and associate general counsel, told The Associated Press.
But a lawyer for the plaintiffs had another perspective. “Had the court gone the other way, it would have been open season for the tobacco companies to continue to perpetrate fraud on the tobacco-consuming public,” David Frederick, who represented the Maine smokers, told the A.P.
The American Heart Association said it was pleased with the ruling. “Smokers who have been deceived by Big Tobacco’s dubious marketing practices are now in a better position to hold the industry accountable,” M. Cass Wheeler, chief executive of the association, said in a statement.
The majority ruling went against a recent trend of court rulings limiting state regulation of business and deferring to federal power. Justice Stevens noted that “we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal laws are ‘without effect.’ ” On the other hand, he observed, when Congress enacts a law whose language can be interpreted more than one way, courts normally accept the reading that goes against pre-emption. |
