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
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff State of Ohio ex rel. [Richard Cordray]

Defendant

  • Others
  • Philip Morris, Inc.
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

None

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"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."