Craft v. Philip Morris Companies

Plaintiffs filed a class action against tobacco manufacturers, claiming that the defendants committed fraud by marketing “light” cigarettes in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MPA). The district court granted class certification under the MPA. On appeal, the Court affirmed class certification, but reversed the district court's opinion in other respects - specifically with regards to proper application of the MPA.

Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al., 190 S.W.3d 368, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District (2005).

  • United States
  • Aug 16, 2005
  • Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District

Parties

Plaintiff

Defendant

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"Defendants next argue that if a consumer purchased Lights for reasons unrelated to tar and nicotine, the consumer got what he or she paid for and was not deceived or damaged. They contend that the need to determine which individuals were deceived by the term "light" must be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, plaintiff did not allege reliance or deception in her petition, and she did not base the theory of this lawsuit on reliance or deception. Therefore, under the theory of this lawsuit, the individual reasons for purchase are not issues and do not predominate over the common questions."
"Defendants first argue that whether or not a consumer actually ingested a higher amount of tar or nicotine depends on how the consumer smoked each cigarette and that this presents an individual issue of proof with respect to each consumer. To determine what evidence may be required, we look at the allegations of the petition. However, we do not consider whether the petition states a cause of action. Further, we do not consider what proof may be required under a cause of action defendant thinks plaintiff should have pleaded. Plaintiff's claim with respect to liability is that she purchased a product designed and manufactured to manipulate test results, resulting in a misrepresented and mislabeled product. Plaintiff's allegations go to the condition and labeling of the product at the time it was sold; they do not make defendant's liability dependent on each consumer's individual smoking behavior. Plaintiff also alleges that she failed to receive the qualities and economic value of a low tar, low nicotine cigarette. Again, this allegation goes to the condition of the product at the time of the purchase transaction and would require proof that the product did not have the value of a truly low tar and low nicotine cigarette. This allegation does not consider the consumer's manner of use of the product after purchase. As a result, evidence of individual smoking behavior does not predominate over the common questions of liability."