Non-Smokers' Rights Association v. British American Tobacco
This is an appeal of a 2012 decision that found British American Tobacco (BAT) France guilty of violating the country’s advertising laws. The appeals court affirmed the earlier decision that BAT France and its president were guilty of civil and criminal violations for (1) distributing a poster to 28,000 retailers saying “false cigarette, true risk” with the BAT logo; and (2) publishing a document on the company’s website about a BAT France campaign to raise awareness of counterfeit tobacco cigarettes. The appeals court found that the campaigns had the effect of enhancing BAT’s image and encouraging the sale of tobacco products. The appeals court increased the amount of the fines imposed on BAT France and ruled that the NGO Non-Smokers’ Rights Association had proper standing to file the lawsuit.
Non-Smokers' Rights Association v. British American Tobacco - France, No. 653, Court of Appeals - Versailles (2013).
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.
Regulatory measures may lead to an increase in illegal sales, such as counterfeit products. The industry may also argue that such illicit trade will reduce tobacco tax revenue.
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.
"Under these conditions, it is completely unviable for the [] company BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO France to argue, on one hand, that pursuant to Article R. 123-23 8 of the Code of Commerce, it was required to include its title and logo on the documents at issue, inasmuch as it is the association of the latter with a message in favor of tobacco sold legally that makes it possible to consider that the company knowingly communicated about tobacco products under the cover of a message of public interest, and on the other hand, that the prohibition of using the title and logo including the term “Tobacco” would constitute an infringement of free enterprise as defined in Article 34 of the founding treaty of the European Union, considering that neither
the title nor the logo are at issue in and of themselves.
Finally, the company BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO France cannot reasonably maintain that the conviction for the remarks in contention would have the effect of undermining free enterprise, since it is legal for the company to manufacture and distribute its tobacco products freely on French territory, subject to the limitation of not communicating about the products in question, just like any other French or European company."
"The company BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO France maintains that the press release of July 23, 2010, as well as the notice associated with it, had the aim of making the general public aware of the health risks associated with the purchase and consumption of smuggled and counterfeit tobacco products. It appears, however, upon examining them, that the message delivered tends to give rise to the belief that this company is seeking a goal of general public interest by fighting the scourge of tobacco. In fact, by speaking negatively of smuggled or counterfeit cigarettes, the slogan clearly allows one to think that tobacco products available in the official networks and sold by the company BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO France, the signatory of the notice and manufacturer, presents a lesser risk, particularly to health. In this regard, the defendant company cannot in light of the evidence attempt to make us believe that the risk in question was first of all a risk of criminality or customs violations, since it also evokes the hazards posed to consumers by the smuggled and counterfeit products."
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.
This is an appeal of a 2012 decision that found British American Tobacco (BAT) France guilty of violating the country’s advertising laws. The appeals court affirmed the earlier decision that BAT France and its president were guilty of civil and criminal violations for (1) distributing a poster to 28,000 retailers saying “false cigarette, true risk” with the BAT logo; and (2) publishing a document on the company’s website about a BAT France campaign to raise awareness of counterfeit tobacco cigarettes. The appeals court found that the campaigns had the effect of enhancing BAT’s image and encouraging the sale of tobacco products. The appeals court increased the amount of the fines imposed on BAT France and ruled that the NGO Non-Smokers’ Rights Association had proper standing to file the lawsuit.