An Illinois court revived a class action lawsuit alleging that tobacco company advertising using the terms “light” and “low tar” constituted fraud. A trial court had awarded the class $10.1 billion in damages but an appeals court overturned the verdict, ruling that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had authorized the use of the terms “light” and “low tar” in tobacco advertising, subject to certain limitations. However, in a separate (and later) lawsuit, the FTC filed a “friend of the court” brief stating that it never intended to authorize the use of the terms “light” and “low tar.” In this case, the court found that the appeals court would have ruled differently if the plaintiffs had been able to enter evidence of the FTC’s position, which became available after trial. Additionally, the court ruled that the trial court had exceeded the scope of its review in a ruling barring the case on the question of damages. The court reinstated the case with the original verdict intact, which is likely to be appealed by tobacco companies.
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2014 IL App (5th) 130017 (Ill. App., 2014).
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
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)
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
The tobacco industry may have perpetrated a fraud upon the public or the courts by presenting false information or deliberately hiding known-facts.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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 defendant further contends that the evidence showed that the FTC changed its position. We disagree. It is true that the rescission of guidance represented a change in the FTC's policy regarding a somewhat related matter-that is, the FTC no longer endorsed a method of testing tar and nicotine yields called the Cambridge Filter Method. Rescission of FTC Guidance, 73 Fed. Reg. at 74,503 (indicating that advertisers "should no longer use *** terms or phrases that state or imply the Commission's approval or endorsement of the Cambridge Filter Method"). However, the FTC specifically declined to change its position regarding the use of descriptors such as "light" or "low tar." Rescission of FTC Guidance, 73 Fed. Reg. at 74,504. As noted previously, the FTC explicitly stated that it had never authorized or defined those terms. Rescission of FTC Guidance, 73 Fed. Reg. at 74,504. Moreover, after declining "the invitation to initiate a proceeding that would prohibit all use of descriptors" such as those at issue in this case, the FTC went on to state that "any continued use of descriptors is subject to the FTC Act's proscription against deceptive acts and practices." Rescission of FTC Guidance, 73 Fed. Reg. at 74,504."
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.
An Illinois court revived a class action lawsuit alleging that tobacco company advertising using the terms “light” and “low tar” constituted fraud. A trial court had awarded the class $10.1 billion in damages but an appeals court overturned the verdict, ruling that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had authorized the use of the terms “light” and “low tar” in tobacco advertising, subject to certain limitations. However, in a separate (and later) lawsuit, the FTC filed a “friend of the court” brief stating that it never intended to authorize the use of the terms “light” and “low tar.” In this case, the court found that the appeals court would have ruled differently if the plaintiffs had been able to enter evidence of the FTC’s position, which became available after trial. Additionally, the court ruled that the trial court had exceeded the scope of its review in a ruling barring the case on the question of damages. The court reinstated the case with the original verdict intact, which is likely to be appealed by tobacco companies.