Philip Morris v. Reilly

This is a challenge by tobacco companies alleging that a Massachusetts statute was unconstitutional when it required tobacco companies to disclose for each brand the identity of each added ingredient. The lower court held that the statute violated the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution by effecting an uncompensated taking, violating the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause.  The First Circuit reversed on the basis that there was no less burdensome alternative and the disclosure will put consumers in a better position to know if their brand contains harmful additives, and to assess the health risks involved. 

Phillip Morris et. al. v Reilly et. al, 267 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2001).

  • United States
  • Oct 16, 2001
  • United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
  • Lorillard Tobacco Company
  • Philip Morris, Inc.
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Defendant

  • HOWARD K. KOH, MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH
  • THOMAS F. REILLY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Legislation Cited

Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (as amended), 15 USC §§ 1331 - 1341

The Massachusetts Tobacco Ingredients and Nicotine Yield Act ("Disclosure Act" or Mass. Gen. Laws. CH. 94 Sec 307B (2000). )

The United States Constitution

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"It is quite true, as the district court said, that "loss of trade secrets is not central to the achievement of the purpose of the statute," but informing consumers of the potentially harmful ingredients to which they would be exposed by smoking a particular brand of cigarettes surely is. Thus, the aggregate reporting required by the federal schemes, lumping together some 700 ingredients without indication which are found in which brand, would certainly not achieve "the hoped-for benefit" of the statute. This is so even though, as the court explained, "consumers already have the ability to compare brands on the basis of the most notoriously harmful aspects of every brand, such as nicotine and tar." The aim of the Disclosure Act is educating Massachusetts consumers and helping them to choose less harmful brands, taking into account not only advertised nicotine and tar ratings but also the synergistic effects of various additives, such as those enhancing the delivery of "free" nicotine to the consumer (thus making deceptive the "light" and "ultra light" labels on many brands). Without brand-specific ingredient lists, researchers do not know which combinations to test and are left to guess which additives might co-exist in certain formulas on the market; like the Manufacturers' competitors, they cannot reverse engineer a formula and thus any health research they conduct is difficult and at best inexact. Brand-specific information in order of magnitude would enable DPH to use its resources most efficiently by targeting the most popular brands, focusing on those ingredients present in the highest quantity to serve the Act's purpose of providing information to consumers about the health risks of particular brands."