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.
Altadis, S.A., a tobacco company, brought an unfair competition claim against Philip Morris Spain. The complaint alleged that Philip Morris had engaged in unlawful advertising of its IQOS device and HEETS tobacco products which presented the products as “reduced risk” and “less harmful.” The trial court agreed and ordered Philip Morris to cease the advertising campaign and to publish a correction of its statements in national media.
Philip Morris appealed, arguing that the publications were the independent work of journalists, that the content was informational rather than promotional, and that the IQOS device was not a “tobacco product” subject to the advertising ban in Law 28/2005.
The Madrid Provincial Court dismissed Philip Morris’ appeal. The court held that, regardless of whether the resulting publications were authored by independent third parties, Philip Morris' conduct in providing information to the media was commercial communication prohibited under Law 28/2005. The court further held that advertising of the IQOS device fell within the statutory definition of “tobacco advertising” because the device's sole purpose was the consumption of tobacco (HEETS).