State of Illinois v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al.
In 1998, litigation brought by several states against various tobacco manufacturers was resolved by a master settlement agreement (MSA), which, in part, prohibited the use of cartoons in product promotions. In 2007, a state government sought to enforce this provision of the MSA by filing contempt charges against a tobacco-manufacturer party to the MSA that was responsible for a "Camel Farm" music-themed promotional campaign, including a magazine advertisement containing editorial content created by the magazine that featured several illustrations. The Court held that the magazine advertisement violated the MSA, finding that the images depicted unnatural abilities, underwent transformations, and were designed to appeal to youth. However, the Court held that the video and website did not violate the MSA as the images portrayed lacked "comically exaggerated features." Finally, the Court held that the editorial illustrations did not constitute a breach of the MSA as the tobacco manufacturer was not bound by a duty to prevent the use of cartoons by a third party.
State of Illinois v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., 951 N.E.2d 1225, Appellate Court of Illinois (2011).
United States
Jun 30, 2011
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
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)
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
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.
"In sum, Reynolds violated the MSA and consent decree because the "Camel Farm" advertisement in Rolling Stone consisted of a "cartoon." The images in the video and on the website, however, were not a "cartoon." The man-made objects in the "Camel Farm" advertisement in Rolling Stone possess the unnatural ability to grow and transform into "flowers" that ultimately become airborne. The MSA adopted by the consent decree expressly and clearly prohibited the use of "cartoons" in "the advertising,
promoting, packaging or labeling of Tobacco Products." The consent decree stated that the circuit court retained jurisdiction to implement and enforce the consent decree and underlying agreement. The consent decree permitted the State to seek an order for monetary, civil contempt or criminal sanctions for any claimed violation. The circuit court, however, "in its discretion may
determine not to enter an order for monetary, civil contempt or criminal sanctions." A circuit court abuses its discretion if "no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court." Bruce v. Atadero, 405 Ill. App. 3d 318, 323 (2010). The consent decree further stated that in any proceeding resulting in a finding that Reynolds violated the consent decree, Reynolds "shall pay the State's costs and attorney fees incurred by the State of Illinois in such proceeding." The circuit court exercised its discretion when it struck the State's $6.5 million sanction request on the basis that the requested sanction was punitive in nature, which is a remedy available in criminal contempt and not civil contempt. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in striking the request for sanctions because civil contempt is coercive rather than punitive in nature and "is designed to bring a defendant's conduct in line with a prior court order." City of Mattoon v. Mentzer, 282 Ill. App. 3d 628, 636 (1996). Here, Reynolds voluntarily suspended its "Camel Farm" campaign when legal proceedings were initiated against it. Thus, Reynolds' conduct became consistent with the consent decree's and MSA's terms because it suspended use of alleged "cartoons" in promoting its tobacco products. According to the consent decree, the State is entitled to costs and attorney fees if Reynolds was found to be in violation of the consent decree. Here, Reynolds violated the consent decree because it used a "cartoon" in the "Camel Farm" campaign. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the circuit court to determine the appropriate relief consistent with this disposition."
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.
In 1998, litigation brought by several states against various tobacco manufacturers was resolved by a master settlement agreement (MSA), which, in part, prohibited the use of cartoons in product promotions. In 2007, a state government sought to enforce this provision of the MSA by filing contempt charges against a tobacco-manufacturer party to the MSA that was responsible for a "Camel Farm" music-themed promotional campaign, including a magazine advertisement containing editorial content created by the magazine that featured several illustrations. The Court held that the magazine advertisement violated the MSA, finding that the images depicted unnatural abilities, underwent transformations, and were designed to appeal to youth. However, the Court held that the video and website did not violate the MSA as the images portrayed lacked "comically exaggerated features." Finally, the Court held that the editorial illustrations did not constitute a breach of the MSA as the tobacco manufacturer was not bound by a duty to prevent the use of cartoons by a third party.