Philip Morris appealed the Public Health Agency of Sweden's determination that HEETS (heated tobacco sticks or inserts) were tobacco products for smoking and should not be categorized as smokeless tobacco products under the European Union Tobacco Products Directive and Swedish Law. Also, the agency banned and ordered the recall of HEETS with packaging containing the health warning "[t]his product is harmful to health and is addictive" from the market.
The Administrative Court held that a determining factor as to whether a product is a smokeless tobacco product is whether the product is consumed by combustion and undertook a review of the primary combustion requirements. Ultimately, the Administrative Court found that HEETS were not consumed by combustion because there was no evidence of exothermic oxidation. The court concluded that the evidence showed HEETS could be consumed without oxidation, a main element of combustion. Therefore, the court concluded that HEETS are smokeless tobacco products.
Philip Morris v. Public Health Agency of Sweden, Case no. 3803-22, Administrative Court of Stockholm (2022).
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.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
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.
"The IMM report states that exothermic oxidation is very likely to occur in the consumption of HEETS. However, no technical support for this assumption is presented in the report. As explained above, a condition for combustion, according to all definitions available in the case, is that it is an exothermic process. In the absence of support for the assessment that consumption of HEETS involves an exothermic process, and with comprehensive evidence supporting the fact that it is an endothermic process that is not dependent on oxygen, the Administrative Court considers it established that HEETS is not consumed through combustion. HEETS is therefore rightly a smokeless tobacco product."
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 appealed the Public Health Agency of Sweden's determination that HEETS (heated tobacco sticks or inserts) were tobacco products for smoking and should not be categorized as smokeless tobacco products under the European Union Tobacco Products Directive and Swedish Law. Also, the agency banned and ordered the recall of HEETS with packaging containing the health warning "[t]his product is harmful to health and is addictive" from the market.
The Administrative Court held that a determining factor as to whether a product is a smokeless tobacco product is whether the product is consumed by combustion and undertook a review of the primary combustion requirements. Ultimately, the Administrative Court found that HEETS were not consumed by combustion because there was no evidence of exothermic oxidation. The court concluded that the evidence showed HEETS could be consumed without oxidation, a main element of combustion. Therefore, the court concluded that HEETS are smokeless tobacco products.