Mulford, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al.

Plaintiffs, smokers who purchased Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights brand cigarettes in New Mexico, brought a class action lawsuit against Philip Morris and Altria Group, Inc., claiming that the tobacco manufacturers deceptively marketed cigarettes as "lowered tar" and "lights" in violation of the New Mexico's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UPA). The Plaintiffs argued that the manufacturers caused them economic damage by purposely designing the particular brands of "light" cigarettes to register lower amounts of nicotine during the consumer protection agency's tests than those that consumers would actually ingest. The plaintiffs further claimed that the companies fraudulently concealed evidence of its knowledge that behavioral factors increased overall nicotine consumption. The defendant companies moved to dismiss the suit, asserting that the statute and the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) already sufficiently regulated the plaintiffs' claims of UPA violations. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico found that FCLAA did sufficiently regulate the plaintiffs' claims insofar as they were based on theories of fraudulent concealment, failure to warn, and warning neutralization. However, the Court allowed the plaintiffs' claim based on fraudulent misrepresentation because the FCLAA did not expressly regulate that specific claim. 


Mulford, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., 506 F.Supp.2d 733, United States District Court, District of New Mexico (2007).

  • United States
  • Mar 16, 2007
  • United States District Court, District of New Mexico



  • Cory Fox
  • Harrison Mulford III
  • Others similarly situated
  • Rhonda Newby
  • Richard DeLuna


  • Altria Group, Inc.
  • Philip Morris USA, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product