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
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff The People of the State of Illinois

Defendant

  • American Tobacco Company, Inc.
  • B.A.T. Industries, p.l.c.
  • British American Tobacco Company, LTD
  • Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation
  • Hill and Knowlton, Inc.
  • Liggett & Myers, Inc.
  • Lorillard Tobacco Company, Inc.
  • Philip Morris, Inc.
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
  • The Council for Tobacco Research-U.S.A.
  • Tobacco Institute, Inc.
  • United States Tobacco Company

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"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."