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 group of plaintiffs, including smokers and non-smokers, brought action against Japan Tobacco, Inc (JTI). Plaintiffs alleged that, by manufacturing, importing, and distributing tobacco products, JTI violated their constitutional rights to life and health, and therefore, JTI must refrain from such activities. The plaintiffs also argued that the warning labels on tobacco package could not effectively warn consumers about the risk of smoking, and requested the court to officially warn JTI for harming consumers' health. The Court held that although a long period of smoking can cause health problems and that secondhand smoking had a strong correlation with various diseases, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish causation. The evidence did not prove that JTI's activities caused the plaintiffs' health problems. The Court concluded that plaintiffs had no standing to raise constitutional complaints about JTIs activities and that because of the lack of sufficient causation between JTI's activities and plaintiffs' health problems, there was no ground to issue an official warning against JTI. The plaintiffs' requests were denied.