Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.

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).

  • United States
  • Apr 29, 2014
  • Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Michael Fruth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
  • Sharon Price, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Defendant Philip Morris, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"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."