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.
Several tobacco-product manufacturers challenged the constitutionality of a Massachusetts statute that required annual disclosure of ingredients lists and nicotine yields for all cigarettes, snuff, and chewing tobacco sold within the state to the state public health department. These disclosures subsequently may be released by the department to the public to mitigate risks to public health. The manufacturers argued that the statute was preempted by federal laws regulating the labeling and advertising of tobacco products, which included anonymous federal ingredient reporting requirements. The Court held that the state statute was not expressly or impliedly preempted because, among other things: (1) it did not regulate the advertising or promotional activities of tobacco companies by requiring them to provide information directly to the public; (2) it did not frustrate either the federal labeling requirements or the national uniformity of advertising regulations; and (3) the federal regulations did not demonstrate an intent to protect tobacco ingredients from disclosure throughout the nation or to inhibit states from collecting information about tobacco additives.