A class of Illinois residents sued several tobacco companies, alleging in the original complaint that Philip Morris deceptively marketed Marlboro Lights and alleging in a third amended complaint that all of the defendant-companies deceptively and falsely marketed "light," "ultra light," and "low tar" cigarettes as presenting fewer health risks than other cigarettes. In the time period between the original and third amended complaints, plaintiffs moved for dismissal of the allegations pertaining to Marlboro Lights 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 held that the claims pertaining to lights cigarettes other than Marlboro Lights did not relate back to the original filing and were therefore time-barred. The Court ordered Philip Morris to show cause at a later date as to why the lights claims pertaining to Marlboro Lights should not be reinstated.
Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. 09 C 1596 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2009).
United States
Sep 8, 2009
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 third amended complaint expands the light cigarettes claims originally asserted in the first amended complaint. The first amended complaint’s light cigarettes claims were directed only at Philip Morris’ Marlboro Lights brand, and the putative class was composed of Illinois residents who had purchased only Marlboro Lights cigarettes. The third amended complaint is directed at all low tar, light, and ultra light cigarettes. Plaintiffs concede that their light cigarettes claims against defendants other than Philip Morris are time-barred, but that still leaves at least twenty-eight other Philip Morris brands that were not part of the claims in the first amended complaint. There is nothing in the first amended complaint from which Philip Morris would have gotten notice of a potential claim relating to its low tar, light, and ultra light cigarette brands other than Marlboro Lights. In fact, the first amended complaint pointedly named only Marlboro
Lights, even though the other low tar, light, and ultra light brands had been in existence long before the filing of the first amended complaint. For these reasons, the expanded light cigarettes claims in the third amended complaint do not relate back to the filing of the first amended complaint to the extent they concerns brands other than Marlboro Lights. If the Court ends up permitting plaintiffs to reinstate the light cigarettes claims against Philip Morris, those claims will be limited to the Marlboro Lights brand."
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, alleging in the original complaint that Philip Morris deceptively marketed Marlboro Lights and alleging in a third amended complaint that all of the defendant-companies deceptively and falsely marketed "light," "ultra light," and "low tar" cigarettes as presenting fewer health risks than other cigarettes. In the time period between the original and third amended complaints, plaintiffs moved for dismissal of the allegations pertaining to Marlboro Lights 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 held that the claims pertaining to lights cigarettes other than Marlboro Lights did not relate back to the original filing and were therefore time-barred. The Court ordered Philip Morris to show cause at a later date as to why the lights claims pertaining to Marlboro Lights should not be reinstated.