R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Seattle-King County Department of Health, et al.
A cigarette manufacturer brought an action against local governments claiming that city and county ordinances prohibiting the distribution of free tobacco products and samples were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA). The Court noted that the FCLAA regulated several aspects of cigarette advertising and labeling and explicitly barred state governments from regulating the promotion of cigarettes labeled in conformity with the act. The Court denied the State of Washington's motion to intervene to enforce a provision of an agreement between the state and the manufacturer that prohibited facial challenges to existing local legislation, noting that the challenge was not facial but concerned the application of the ordinances to the distribution of cigarettes. Additionally, the Court held that the distribution of free products constituted promotional activities and that the FCLAA therefore preempted the local ordinances' restrictions on the distribution of cigarette products and samples.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Seattle-King County Department of Health, 473 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (W.D. Wash. 2007).
United States
Feb 6, 2007
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, at Seattle
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)
Measures restricting tobacco sales to or by minors, as well as other retail restrictions relating to point-of-sale, candy and toys resembling tobacco products, vending machines, or free distribution.
(See FCTC Art. 16)
The subject matter of the case should be dealt with at a state level or national level.
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.
"Three federal courts, including this one, have already determined that cigarette sampling is a form of promotion, and, therefore, state laws regulating such sampling, are prohibited. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. McKenna, 445 F.Supp.2d 1252 (W.D.Wash.2006); Jones v. Vilsack, 272 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir.2001); Rockwood v. City of Burlington, 21 F.Supp.2d 411 (D.Vt.1998). In Jones, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that sampling "naturally falls within the range of meaning ordinarily attributed to the term `promotion,' so sampling is a form of cigarette "promotion" under the FCLAA. Jones, 272. F.3d at 1035-37. Similarly, the United States District Court for the District of Vermont concluded that a ban on sampling cigarettes fell into the purview of the FCLAA and was therefore preempted. Rockwood, 21 F.Supp.2d at 420. This Court was persuaded by those conclusions, and also determined that cigarette sampling is a form of "promotion" under the FCLAA. McKenna, 445 F.Supp.2d at 1257. Defendants ask this Court to reject the reasoning of McKenna, Jones and Rockwood because the courts ignored the presumption against preemption of traditional state police power regulations and neglected to consider the FCLAA's contextual framework to determine the preemptive scope of section 1334(b). However, this Court is not persuaded by defendants' arguments. First, this Court agrees that the plain and ordinary meaning of "promotion" includes product sampling. While defendants take issue with Judge Burgess's and the Eighth Circuit's reliance on dictionary definitions of promotion, the reliance on such definitions is standard practice. See, e.g., United States v. Mohrbacher, 182 F.3d 1041, 1048 (9th Cir.1999) (explaining that when there is no indication that Congress intended a specific legal meaning for the term, the court may look to sources such as dictionaries for a definition). Likewise, there is no clearly expressed intent in the legislative history contrary to that meaning. See S & M Inv. Co. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 911 F.2d 324, 327 (9th Cir.1990)."
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.
A cigarette manufacturer brought an action against local governments claiming that city and county ordinances prohibiting the distribution of free tobacco products and samples were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA). The Court noted that the FCLAA regulated several aspects of cigarette advertising and labeling and explicitly barred state governments from regulating the promotion of cigarettes labeled in conformity with the act. The Court denied the State of Washington's motion to intervene to enforce a provision of an agreement between the state and the manufacturer that prohibited facial challenges to existing local legislation, noting that the challenge was not facial but concerned the application of the ordinances to the distribution of cigarettes. Additionally, the Court held that the distribution of free products constituted promotional activities and that the FCLAA therefore preempted the local ordinances' restrictions on the distribution of cigarette products and samples.