Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant, a tobacco company, had violated multiple anti-fraud and consumer protection state laws by labelling its product as "light" and "low tar/nicotine" and thus deceiving the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) and the regulatory measures of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) preempted the plaintiff's arguments. The trial court found for the defendant. On appeal, the Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded, finding that the plaintiffs' (now appellants') claims were not preempted by FCLAA because the claims were not based on a duty “based on smoking and health,” but rather on "a broader, more general duty not to fraudulently misrepresent or deceive." With respect to plaintiffs' claims relating to the FTC, the Court similarly found that the claims were not preempted because the FTC had not issued specific rules defining the type of advertising that violated the Act or established a clear federal policy on low tar claims.
Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 742 N.W.2d 186, Minnesota Court of Appeals (2007).
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
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 subject matter of the case should be dealt with at a state level or national level.
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.
"But we read Cipollone to require that we focus on the legal duty that gives rise to the cause of action and determine whether it is preempted. Here, appellants' common-law fraud claim and statutory claims are clearly based on intentional fraud and misrepresentation and the duty to not deceive through either misrepresentation of a material fact or omission of a material fact. Accordingly, because counts I through V of appellants' complaint are predicated on the broader duty not to deceive, they are not preempted by the FCLAA. See id. at 529, 112 S.Ct. at 2624 (holding that the phrase "based on smoking and health" does not encompass the more general duty not to make fraudulent statements)."
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.
Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant, a tobacco company, had violated multiple anti-fraud and consumer protection state laws by labelling its product as "light" and "low tar/nicotine" and thus deceiving the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) and the regulatory measures of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) preempted the plaintiff's arguments. The trial court found for the defendant. On appeal, the Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded, finding that the plaintiffs' (now appellants') claims were not preempted by FCLAA because the claims were not based on a duty “based on smoking and health,” but rather on "a broader, more general duty not to fraudulently misrepresent or deceive." With respect to plaintiffs' claims relating to the FTC, the Court similarly found that the claims were not preempted because the FTC had not issued specific rules defining the type of advertising that violated the Act or established a clear federal policy on low tar claims.