A class of Illinois residents sued several tobacco companies seeking a forced return of profits based on a claim of “unjust enrichment.” The plaintiffs asserted that the tobacco companies intentionally concealed the truth about the addictiveness of cigarettes and about the tar and nicotine levels in Marlboro Lights. In the fourth complaint of this lengthy lawsuit, two different class groups remained: (1) Illinois residents who purchased tobacco products during the time when tobacco companies engaged in deceptive marketing and (2) Illinois residents who bought or smoked Marlboro Lights. The court agreed with an earlier decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment because the plaintiffs did not show that they had suffered any harm, that they had relied on the tobacco companies’ marketing, or that they would have acted differently if the tobacco companies had been truthful.
Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc., 656 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2011).
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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.
"This would be a different case if there was a greater connection between the defendants' retention of the cigarette revenue and a detriment to the plaintiffs. For example, if the revenue was obtained in a manner that caused
injury to the plaintiffs, or if the revenue was obtained by deceiving the plaintiffs, or even if the revenue was obtained by an inadvertent misrepresentation relied upon by the plaintiffs, the defendants' retention of the revenue might
conceivably be to the plaintiffs' detriment. But these allegations have been explicitly disclaimed by the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, it would not be unjust for a manufacturer to retain the money paid by a consumer for a product
when this consumer was not deceived, would not have acted any differently had he known the truth about the product, was not hurt by the product, and was satisfied with the product and planned to continue purchasing the same product
in the future. In short, the retention of this consumer's money is not detrimental to him...The behavior alleged by the plaintiffs, namely, their claim that the defendants had a concerted plan to intentionally mislead consumers and conceal the truth about their cigarettes, is insufficient to support a cause of action for unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment is not a mode of imposing punitive damages; it is a means of recovering something that the defendant is not entitled to but is unfairly possessing to the plaintiff's detriment.4 And we hold that the mere violation of a consumer's legal right to know about a product's risks, without anything more, cannot support a claim that the manufacturer unjustly retained the revenue from the product's sale to the consumer's detriment."
"The plaintiffs' unjust enrichment theory rests on the allegation that they had a legal right to know about the true nature and hazards of cigarettes. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants violated this right by failing to disclose the full truth about cigarettes and that this failure to disclose was to the plaintiffs' detriment; and that defendants' retention of the benefit—the cigarette revenue—violates the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. It is crucial to note that the plaintiffs do not allege that they suffered any harm, that they relied on the defendants' marketing, or that they would have acted differently had the defendants been truthful about the cigarettes they were selling. In fact, not only do the plaintiffs not make these allegations, but the plaintiffs also explicitly disavow any such allegations, claiming that they are entirely unnecessary to support their theory of unjust enrichment. In other words, the plaintiffs assert that their unjust enrichment claim does not require proof of deception, causation, or actual harm with regard to individual members of the plaintiff class."
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.
A class of Illinois residents sued several tobacco companies seeking a forced return of profits based on a claim of “unjust enrichment.” The plaintiffs asserted that the tobacco companies intentionally concealed the truth about the addictiveness of cigarettes and about the tar and nicotine levels in Marlboro Lights. In the fourth complaint of this lengthy lawsuit, two different class groups remained: (1) Illinois residents who purchased tobacco products during the time when tobacco companies engaged in deceptive marketing and (2) Illinois residents who bought or smoked Marlboro Lights. The court agreed with an earlier decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment because the plaintiffs did not show that they had suffered any harm, that they had relied on the tobacco companies’ marketing, or that they would have acted differently if the tobacco companies had been truthful.