Were there any important court cases over cigarette use?

Answer 1

There have been several Supreme Court cases relative to cigarette use and deceptive advertising. The cases primarily dealt with protections afforded to or withheld from cigarette manufacturers as a result of complying with federal laws expressly warning consumers that smoking is dangerous to one's health.

The US Supreme Court has interpreted product liability issues concerning torts and the inter-relation of state and federal law, but has not delved directly into public health claims or evidence supporting or refuting the medical or product safety claims of any parties. These issues are more likely to be explored at the trial level.

For more information about law suits in lower state and federal courts, access Tobacco.org via Related Links, below.


Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 US 504 (1992)

Rose Cipollone died of lung cancer at age 58, after smoking for 42 years. Her son, the executor of her estate, filed for damages in federal court on the grounds that Liggett "breached express warranties contained in their advertising, failed to warn consumers about smoking's hazards, fraudulently misrepresented those hazards to consumers, and conspired to deprive the public of medical and scientific information about smoking, all in derogation of duties created by New Jersey law."

The common law claim was complicated by the terms of both the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, both of which required cigarette manufacturers to apply warning labels to their products (the 1969 Act amended the warning to read "is dangerous to your health" instead of "may be hazardous to your health," among other things).

The US District Court ruled that all the petitioners claims were preempted by the two Congressional Acts; the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling.

The Supreme Court found that a claim for damages could not proceed against the manufacturers for "failure to warn," due to the labeling act, nor for "breach of express warranty," because the latter implies a contract that didn't exist. The Court determined, however, that the 1965 and 1969 laws did nothing to protect the cigarette companies against charges of intentional fraud and misrepresentation or conspiracy to misrepresent.

The decision of the Supreme Court was to affirm in part and reversed in part, holding the 1965 and 1969 laws preempted claims against failure to warn, and that "breach of express warranty" was an inappropriate charge. The case was remanded to District Court for further action.


Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, 533 US 525 (2001)

The Attorney General of Massachusetts promulgated stringent regulations governing the advertising and sale of various tobacco products in the state. The cigarette manufacturers file suit in federal court, claiming the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) expressly prohibited states from creating their own regulatory requirements, and preempted the state law. Lorillard also claimed Massachusetts' outdoor and point-of-sale advertising restrictions on the location and placement of billboards and in-store signage was in violation of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the cigarette manufacturers on all issues except the Attorney General's requirement that point-of-sale advertising (signs and displays) may be placed no lower than five feet from the ground, a sales practice they held was neither protected by the FCLAA nor unconstitutional.


Altria Group, Inc., et al. v. Good, et al., 555 US ___ (2008)

A group of smokers of light cigarettes filed suit against Altria Group, parent company of Phillip Morris USA, Inc., alleging they had violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA) by fraudulently claiming "light" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes. Phillip Morris averred their statements were factual, citing results of testing the "Cambridge Filter Method," demonstrating the filter reduced the amount of tar and nicotine that reached the lungs. The petitioners acknowledged the results of the study, but claimed the company was aware smokers unknowingly engage in compensatory behavior (covering the filter vents with lips or fingers, taking longer or more frequent "puffs," holding smoke in their lungs longer) that negated the claims.

The manufacturer also stated the FTC's Federal Cigarette Labeling Act (Labeling Act) preempted MUTPA, and relieved them of further burden.

The US District Court granted Altria Group (Phillip Morris) a summary judgment (a legal decision made on the basis of statements and evidence without a trial). The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the lower court ruling, holding that the Labeling Act didn't interfere with the state's right to regulate advertising claims.

The US Supreme Court considered only the relationship between the state and federal laws, but not the claims regarding the truthfulness of the manufacturers statements because that issue had not been addressed in the District Court.

In the opinion of the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens acknowledged that Article VI, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause) elevated federal law to a superior position over state law, and sometimes rendered the application of state laws moot. However, he concluded "Our inquiry into the scope of a statute's pre-emptive effect is guided by the rule that "'[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone' in every pre-emption case."

Congress did not intend to limit the states' authority to prohibit deceptive statements in cigarette advertising, "Congress could not have intended to permit the enforcement of state fraud rules because doing so would defeat the Labeling Act's purpose of preventing nonuniform state warning requirements." The respondents (the smokers) still must prove the petitioners' (Altria/Phillip Morris) use of the the terms "light" and "lower tar" violated the state deceptive practices act.

Decision of the First Circuit affirmed, case remanded to District Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.

(Justice Thomas dissented, and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia and Alito)


Update: In May 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a RICO (federal racketeering law) suit filed in 1999, US v. Phillip Morris USA, 06-2567 (2009), and enjoined the manufacturers of light cigarettes from advertising practices that deceptively present the product as less unhealthy than regular cigarettes.

According to a September 29, 2009, Reuter's article:

"The appeals court also required the use of "corrective statements" on cigarette packages, in advertising and on he companies' websites about the adverse effects of smoking, and banned the use of expressions such as "light" and "low tar" in cigarette marketing.

"Yet in a blow to anti-smoking groups, the appeals court also upheld Kessler's decision not to force the companies to fund a program to help people stop smoking."

The cigarette manufacturers intend to appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court; however, the case will not be on the 2009 docket due to timing issues.

New Legislation: In June 2009, the Senate passed a bill giving the FDA more regulatory ability over manufacturing concerns, which lead to a ban on flavored cigarettes believed created to appeal directly to younger smokers.


Access the full stories via Related Links, below.