Aspinall, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al.

Smokers sued Philip Morris under Massachusetts' consumer protection statute for fraud, alleging that Philip Morris had labeled its products "light" and "low tar" to lead smokers to believe that such cigarettes were lower in nicotine and tar.  The plaintiffs requested class certification.  At issue on appeal is whether defendants' allegedly deceptive conduct may be challenged in a class action seeking damages.  The Court affirmed the trial court's order of certification of a class consisting of purchasers of Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Massachusetts during the four years preceding the filing of the plaintiffs' original complaint.

Aspinall, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al., 442 Mass. 381, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachussets (2004).

  • United States
  • Aug 13, 2004
  • Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Lori Aspinall
  • Other

Defendant

  • Other
  • Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"The circumstances in the Leardi case, in which members of the plaintiff class challenged a landlord's efforts to mislead tenants by deceptive use of language in a lease, were essentially no different from the case before us. As fully explained above, the deceptive advertising, as alleged by the plaintiffs in this case, if proved, effected a per se injury on consumers who purchased the cigarettes represented to be lower in tar and nicotine. It follows that, if the violations of G. L. c. 93A alleged by the plaintiffs are proved, all members of the class of purchasers of Marlboro Lights in Massachusetts will have been injured (regardless of whether some smokers actually received lower tar and nicotine). This is so because all purchased (and, presumably, smoked) a product that was deceptively advertised, as a matter of law, because it was falsely labeled or, at least, created the over-all misleading impression that all smokers would receive "lowered tar and nicotine." Thus, all will be entitled to statutory damages, without regard to whether the plaintiffs are successful in establishing that consumers were overcharged for the deceptively advertised cigarettes. See Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., 436 Mass. 53, 60 n.14 (2002). In citing to the Lord case, the defendants, once again, have confused issues of whether the plaintiffs will be able to prove actual damages with whether they have been injured by the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. Difficult issues with respect to determining the appropriate amount of actual or statutory damages to be awarded in a class action, or potential difficulties with the distribution of the aggregate damages award, do not preclude class certification when all other requirements are met. See Weld v. Glaxo Wellcome Inc., 434 Mass. 81, 92 (2001)."