State of Ohio ex rel. Cordray v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
In 1998, litigation brought by several states against various tobacco manufacturers was resolved by a master settlement agreement (MSA), which, in part, prohibited using cartoons or causing cartoons to be used for the purpose of promoting tobacco products. In 2007, a state government sought to enforce this provision of the MSA by filing contempt charges against a tobacco manufacturer running a "Camel Farm" promotional campaign. The government argued that the promotional campaign utilized cartoons and that the manufacturer caused cartoons to be used in the editorial content created by the magazine enveloped within the magazine advertisement. The trial court held that the promotional campaign itself did not utilize cartoons but that the cartoons featured within the integrated editorial content violated the MSA. On appeal, the Court reexamined the allegations pertaining to the editorial content only. The Court overturned the trial court decision, holding that the editorial cartoons did not violate the MSA as the tobacco manufacturer had not affirmatively caused the use of the cartoons.
State of Ohio ex rel. Cordray v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., 2010-Ohio-86, Court of Appeals of Ohio (2010).
United States
Jan 14, 2010
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County
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)
Measures restricting any form of direct or indirect tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.
(See FCTC Art. 13)
Substantive Issues
None
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.
"Although Reynolds sought to establish a synergy with Rolling Stone and emphasize its support of independent music, it did not "use" or "cause to be used" the Cartoons in the Rolling Stone editorial. The MSA Cartoon ban employs two active verbs, prohibiting Reynolds from "using" Cartoons or "causing" Cartoons to be used in advertising tobacco products. This language prohibits Reynolds from engaging in affirmative conduct. * * * Regarding Reynolds' role in the Rolling Stone editorial content, at most, Reynolds had knowledge, and desired, that the enclosed editorial content would address independent music. Beyond this, however, given the separation between editorial and advertising departments at Rolling Stone, Reynolds did not, and indeed could not, know the editorial content would contain Cartoons. Indeed, the witness testimony in this case demonstrated Reynolds' lack of control regarding the placement of their advertising and, more importantly, the editorial content with which it appeared. Witnesses testified that it was standard industry practice for an advertiser such as Reynolds to be in the dark as to the editorial content that would appear with its advertising. Without any involvement in or knowledge of the stylistic content in the Rolling Stone editorial, Reynolds cannot be said to have been "using" Cartoons or "causing" them to be used."
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 using cartoons or causing cartoons to be used for the purpose of promoting tobacco products. In 2007, a state government sought to enforce this provision of the MSA by filing contempt charges against a tobacco manufacturer running a "Camel Farm" promotional campaign. The government argued that the promotional campaign utilized cartoons and that the manufacturer caused cartoons to be used in the editorial content created by the magazine enveloped within the magazine advertisement. The trial court held that the promotional campaign itself did not utilize cartoons but that the cartoons featured within the integrated editorial content violated the MSA. On appeal, the Court reexamined the allegations pertaining to the editorial content only. The Court overturned the trial court decision, holding that the editorial cartoons did not violate the MSA as the tobacco manufacturer had not affirmatively caused the use of the cartoons.