A class of Illinois residents sued several tobacco companies under Illinois' Consumer Fraud Act, alleging in the original complaint and in a third amended complaint that Philip Morris deceptively and falsely marketed Marlboro Lights as presenting fewer health risks than other cigarettes. In the time period between the original and third amended complaints, plaintiffs had moved for dismissal of the lights allegations, maintaining that the matter was addressed by a separate class action before another court. Although the separate class action subsequently was dismissed as preempted by federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court later invalidated the grounds for dismissal. Upon motion by the defendants to dismiss the lights allegations in the third amended complaint, the Court vacated the prior dismissal and reinstated the original claim regarding Marlboro Lights, finding that the claim was not precluded by the separate class action because the intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision materially altered the situation.
Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., 683 F. Supp. 2d 730 (N.D. Ill. 2010).
United States
Jan 13, 2010
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
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.
"The decision in Altria, together with the other circumstances the Court has described, persuades the Court that this case presents a materially altered situation such that the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim is not barred by Illinois claim preclusion law. The other circumstances include the fact that the unjust enrichment claim was not adjudicated on the merits, combined with the fact that the Price class representatives dismissed it without notice to the class, in a way that calls the adequacy of their representation into question. The Court concludes, based on these same considerations, that there are changed circumstances that render unjust the state court’s 2002 interlocutory order dismissing the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim concerning Marlboro Lights claim. The Court therefore vacates that order and reinstates the claim."
"The plaintiffs in Altria were Maine residents who smoked Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights. They alleged that Philip Morris (and its parent company Altria Group) deliberately deceived consumers about “the true and harmful nature of ‘light’ cigarettes” in violation of a Maine statute that, like the ICFA, prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Altria, 129 S. Ct. at 541. Altria argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were impliedly preempted by FTC policy. It argued that the FTC had “required tobacco companies to disclose tar and nicotine yields in cigarette advertising using a government-mandated testing methodology and [had] authorized them to use descriptors as shorthand references to those numerical test results.” Id. at 550
(emphasis in original). The Supreme Court squarely rejected this argument, finding that “the FTC has in fact never required that cigarette manufacturers disclose tar and nicotine yields, nor has it condoned representation of those yields through the use of “light” or “low tar” descriptors.” Id. And the Court specifically addressed and rejected the argument about the FTC’s American Brands consent order that the Illinois Supreme Court had accepted in Price. The Court stated that the consent order authorized nothing; it “only enjoined conduct,” and in any event it was binding only on the parties to the consent order. Id. at 550 n. 13. In short, the Supreme Court’s decision in Altria 2reads the FTC’s actions in a way that directly contradicts the interpretation on which the Illinois Supreme Court relied in Price to conclude that the agency had approved the use of “light” or similar terms."
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 under Illinois' Consumer Fraud Act, alleging in the original complaint and in a third amended complaint that Philip Morris deceptively and falsely marketed Marlboro Lights as presenting fewer health risks than other cigarettes. In the time period between the original and third amended complaints, plaintiffs had moved for dismissal of the lights allegations, maintaining that the matter was addressed by a separate class action before another court. Although the separate class action subsequently was dismissed as preempted by federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court later invalidated the grounds for dismissal. Upon motion by the defendants to dismiss the lights allegations in the third amended complaint, the Court vacated the prior dismissal and reinstated the original claim regarding Marlboro Lights, finding that the claim was not precluded by the separate class action because the intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision materially altered the situation.