Philip Morris brought an action against the Federal Republic of Germany alleging that its tobacco product “Heat Stick”, under the brand name “HEETS”, was incorrectly classified as a “tobacco product for smoking.” Plaintiff claimed that HEETS is a “smokeless tobacco product” on the basis that a combustion process does not occur during consumption as it generates steam rather than smoke. The court explained that the distinction between a “smoking tobacco product” and a “smokeless tobacco product” is based solely on whether a tobacco product is consumed with or without a combustion process; and it is irrelevant whether smoke occurs when the tobacco product is consumed. The court found that the plaintiff’s tobacco product was heated in a controlled manner without the tobacco igniting and thus there was no combustion process. The court ruled that a tobacco product consumed in this way is then to be classified as a “smokeless tobacco product.”
Philip Morris GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany, 4A 23/19, Administrative Court of Braunschweig (2021).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are tobacco products that require the use of an electronic device to heat a tobacco insert (stick or pod of compressed tobacco). HTP systems are fully integrated so that the heating device and tobacco insert for each system must be used together.
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 self-sustaining exothermic combustion - as occurs when using conventional smoking tobacco products - is not present…Tobacco heaters such as the product at issue are designed precisely to prevent "combustion". An understanding of the term "combustion process" which deviates from this result in the form, that the heating of tobacco to temperatures at which it does not yet ignite is to be included under this term, cannot be derived from the express classification of "waterpipe tobacco" as a "tobacco product for smoking" in the TPD. The classification is consistent with the principled distinction between "tobacco products for smoking" and "smokeless tobacco products" based solely on the criterion of "involving a combustion process" and is to be understood as a legal fiction..."
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.
Philip Morris brought an action against the Federal Republic of Germany alleging that its tobacco product “Heat Stick”, under the brand name “HEETS”, was incorrectly classified as a “tobacco product for smoking.” Plaintiff claimed that HEETS is a “smokeless tobacco product” on the basis that a combustion process does not occur during consumption as it generates steam rather than smoke. The court explained that the distinction between a “smoking tobacco product” and a “smokeless tobacco product” is based solely on whether a tobacco product is consumed with or without a combustion process; and it is irrelevant whether smoke occurs when the tobacco product is consumed. The court found that the plaintiff’s tobacco product was heated in a controlled manner without the tobacco igniting and thus there was no combustion process. The court ruled that a tobacco product consumed in this way is then to be classified as a “smokeless tobacco product.”