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.
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.
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.