The tobacco company Altadis, S.A., a subsidiary of Imperial Brands, filed a complaint against Philip Morris Spain, S.L. (Philip Morris) for violating the advertising prohibition in the tobacco control law (Law No. 28/2005). The complaint alleged that Philip Morris violated the law by conducting a communication campaign for the IQOS device and the accompanying "HEETS" sticks/inserts. The campaign included details on the product’s characteristics (i.e., how it differs from conventional cigarettes and technology) and purchase options (i.e., where to purchase the device and HEETS and pricing for both). Philip Morris argued that the tobacco control law does not apply to the device because it is not a tobacco product, and the campaign was not advertising but intended for the public interest.
The court held that Philip Morris violated the advertising ban and ordered it to cease the campaign because the published information was a form of communication that had a direct or indirect purpose oreffect ofpromoting a tobacco product. Furthermore, the court emphasized that although the IQOS device is not a tobacco product, it has no other purpose but to be used with a tobacco product. Therefore, promoting the sale of the device is equivalent to promoting tobacco use.
Altadis v. Philip Morris Spain, SJM M 1157/2019, Commercial Court No. 03 of Madrid (2019)
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
A violation of the public’s right to information. The tobacco industry may claim that advertising, promotion or sponsorship, or packaging regulations limit the industry’s ability to communicate information to their customers and therefore infringes on the customer’s right to receive information, and to distinguish one product from another. Alternatively, public health advocates may claim that tobacco industry misinformation violates their right to accurate information or that government must be transparent in its dealings with the tobacco industry.
Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are tobacco products that require the use of an electronic device to heat a tobacco insert (stick or pod of compressed tobacco). HTP systems are fully integrated so that the heating device and tobacco insert for each system must be used together.
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"In response to this claim, the defendant argues that the IQOS product is not a tobacco
product, while HEETS is, and therefore the former is not subject to the regulations applicable to
such products; with respect to HEETS, it is pointed out that it is a tobacco product that can only
be consumed with the IQOS device, but it does not have the same design and composition as a
combustible cigarette, and they differ substantially; therefore, HEETS is not a cigarette, it does
not combust, its use does not produce smoke, and its legal qualification is that of a novel
tobacco product, which makes it subject to specific regulations; the information contained in
the lawsuit is not advertising, but information from the media on matters of public interest; the
defendant responded to the plaintiff's request, but the lawsuit was filed only seven days after
the request was made."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The tobacco company Altadis, S.A., a subsidiary of Imperial Brands, filed a complaint against Philip Morris Spain, S.L. (Philip Morris) for violating the advertising prohibition in the tobacco control law (Law No. 28/2005). The complaint alleged that Philip Morris violated the law by conducting a communication campaign for the IQOS device and the accompanying "HEETS" sticks/inserts. The campaign included details on the product’s characteristics (i.e., how it differs from conventional cigarettes and technology) and purchase options (i.e., where to purchase the device and HEETS and pricing for both). Philip Morris argued that the tobacco control law does not apply to the device because it is not a tobacco product, and the campaign was not advertising but intended for the public interest.
The court held that Philip Morris violated the advertising ban and ordered it to cease the campaign because the published information was a form of communication that had a direct or indirect purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product. Furthermore, the court emphasized that although the IQOS device is not a tobacco product, it has no other purpose but to be used with a tobacco product. Therefore, promoting the sale of the device is equivalent to promoting tobacco use.