"The State contends Reynolds' duty is absolute and foreseeability is irrelevant. But absent a reasonable foreseeability that Rolling Stone would use cartoons, it does not follow that Reynolds had a duty to include a cartoon restriction in its insertion order. Inside the Patron tequila gatefold shown to Reynolds, the Rolling Stone content consisted of traditional text and photographic material. Given the unchallenged findings of fact, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that Reynolds' failure to prevent the use of cartoons in Rolling Stone's copy did not amount to causing the gatefold to include cartoons. We also agree with the trial court, however, that lack of foreseeability will not be available as a defense in future where adjacent or integrated content violates the MSA."
State of Washington v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
State of Washington v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 211 P.3d 448, Court of Appeals of Washington (2009).
- United States
- Jul 13, 2009
- Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1
The State of Washington appealed a lower court ruling that an advertisement placed by R.J. Reynolds in Rolling Stone magazine did not violate the provisions of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that ban the use of cartoons by tobacco companies to promote their products. The advertisement at issue was a gatefold advertisement in Rolling Stone magazine placed by R.J. Reynolds to promote its Camel Farm campaign. The lower court ruled that the portion of the advertisement placed by Reynolds did not contain cartoons and that Reynolds was not responsible for the cartoon content in adjacent editorial content.
On appeal, the court held the images in the Camel Farm advertisement violated the plain language of the MSA, which contains a broadly-worded definition of “cartoon.” The appellate court, however, agreed with the trial court that Reynolds was not responsible for prevent cartoon content in the adjacent editorial content. The court then remanded the case to the trial court the address the issue of remedies.