In Vermont, a tobacco company advertised a "non-traditional 'potentially reduced exposure product' (PREP) cigarette," which heated but did not burn the tobacco within it. Based on several short-term and small-sample studies funded by the tobacco industry, the tobacco manufacturer marketed this cigarette as a healthier option for current smokers, going so far as to claim that this cigarette "may present less risk of cancer, chronic bronchitis, and possibly emphysema" compared to other cigarettes on the market. The tobacco manufacturer pursued an extensive print and online advertising campaign despite knowing: 1. a majority of consumers would gloss over the word "may" and would see this cigarette as a healthy alternative, 2. there exists a consensus in the scientific community that there is no such thing as a "safe cigarette," and 3. that no study has found that smoking "light," "ultra-light," or other reduced exposure cigarettes is associated with a decrease in the risk of contracting any tobacco-related disease. Due to insufficient scientific evidence to substantiate the health claims in the advertisement and the manufacturer's proven knowledge of the three points above, the Court found that the tobacco manufacturer had violated the Federal Trade Commission Advertising Substantiation Guidelines, the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, and the manufacturer's responsibilities under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). The Court fined the manufacturer over $8.32 million for making over 6,776 "deliberate, unsubstantiated, and deceptive health marketing claims and statements." The Court further issued a permanent injunction against the tobacco manufacturer prohibiting the advertisement of any PREP accompanied by claims of health effects unless a long-term, epidemiological study "unequivocally" supported the claims.
State of Vermont v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. S1087-05 CnC (Pearson, J., June 3, 2013)
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.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are tobacco products that require the use of an electronic device to heat a tobacco insert (stick or pod of compressed tobacco). HTP systems are fully integrated so that the heating device and tobacco insert for each system must be used together.
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.
"Defendant R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is hereby permanently enjoined, and prohibited from
(A) marketing, distributing, selling, promoting or advertising – within the state of Vermont or in any manner which would reasonably be expected to reach consumers or potential customers in the state of Vermont – any non-traditional cigarette, or “potentially reduced exposure product” (“PREP”), which contains actual tobacco as a constituent component or ingredient in any amount, whether the tobacco is burned, heated or otherwise subjected to any process intended to release the tobacco’s own constituent elements (including, but not limited to nicotine (or any chemical variant(s) thereof));
(B) through the use of, together with, or accompanied by any marketing claims, or advertising or promotional statements which suggest, state or allow any inference by a reasonable existing cigarette smoker, that the purchase and use of the PREP or non-traditional cigarette will lessen, or reduce the purchaser’s medical risk, or chances of developing (or contracting) cancer, chronic bronchitis, or emphysema, unless
(C) Reynolds can cite to (1) at least one long-term epidemiological study of existing smokers using the same (or an essentially similar) PREP and/or non-traditional cigarette, published in an accredited scientific or medical journal of general circulation, which clearly and unequivocally supports the claim(s) or statement(s) made under sub-part (B) above; or (2) multiple studies of existing smokers using the same (or an essentially similar) PREP and/or non-traditional cigarette, each published in an accredited scientific or medical journal of general circulation, which studies document a statistically and medically significant decrease in the presence, or incidence of validated biomarkers for the development of cancer, chronic bronchitis, or emphysema as a result of the use of the PREP and/or non-traditional cigarette, where (i) the existing smokers’ use of the PREP and/or non-traditional cigarette in each study accurately and substantially replicates the smokers’ regular patterns of smoking and in particular the smokers’ regular level of nicotine intake, and (ii) the “validated biomarkers” are recognized and accepted as such for the development of cancer, chronic bronchitis, or emphysema by a broad community of scientists and medical experts familiar with tobacco-related diseases."
"Here the Attorneys General of 40 out of 50 states, acting through the NAAG, told Reynolds in March 2005 in no uncertain terms that its use of the “less risk” health claims for Eclipse without adequate scientific studies to support those statements was a violation of the MSA and each state’s consent decree, as well as the consumer fraud laws of many (if not most) of those states. Reynolds persisted, however, and continued to market and sell Eclipse with the challenged statements, since found by this court to be deceptive, for another 2 years. Finally, the explicit provisions of the MSA and resulting Consent Decree(s) which prohibited Reynolds from making any misleading or deceptive marketing claims concerning any tobacco product, were another source of advance notice that it needed to tread very carefully in this area."
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 Vermont, a tobacco company advertised a "non-traditional 'potentially reduced exposure product' (PREP) cigarette," which heated but did not burn the tobacco within it. Based on several short-term and small-sample studies funded by the tobacco industry, the tobacco manufacturer marketed this cigarette as a healthier option for current smokers, going so far as to claim that this cigarette "may present less risk of cancer, chronic bronchitis, and possibly emphysema" compared to other cigarettes on the market. The tobacco manufacturer pursued an extensive print and online advertising campaign despite knowing: 1. a majority of consumers would gloss over the word "may" and would see this cigarette as a healthy alternative, 2. there exists a consensus in the scientific community that there is no such thing as a "safe cigarette," and 3. that no study has found that smoking "light," "ultra-light," or other reduced exposure cigarettes is associated with a decrease in the risk of contracting any tobacco-related disease. Due to insufficient scientific evidence to substantiate the health claims in the advertisement and the manufacturer's proven knowledge of the three points above, the Court found that the tobacco manufacturer had violated the Federal Trade Commission Advertising Substantiation Guidelines, the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, and the manufacturer's responsibilities under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). The Court fined the manufacturer over $8.32 million for making over 6,776 "deliberate, unsubstantiated, and deceptive health marketing claims and statements." The Court further issued a permanent injunction against the tobacco manufacturer prohibiting the advertisement of any PREP accompanied by claims of health effects unless a long-term, epidemiological study "unequivocally" supported the claims.