Plaintiffs claimed breach of express and implied warranties and intentional misrepresentation, arguing that Philip Morris U.S.A. and others marketed "light" cigarette brands as if they had lower levels of tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes, when in fact these cigarettes were as harmful as regular cigarettes. In their motion for summary judgment, defendants argued, among other things, that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and barred by the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (LUTPA) which exempts certain conduct from liability. The Court found that plaintiffs' cause of action was not preempted by the Labeling Act. The Court granted defendants' motion to the extent that plaintiffs' claims made pursuant to LUTPA will be dismissed. Otherwise the Court denied defendants' motion.
Sullivan, et al v. Philip Morris U.S.A., et al, 2005 WL 2123702 (W.D. La. 2005).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
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)
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.
The subject matter of the case should be dealt with at a state level or national level.
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.
"Plaintiffs assert that Philip Morris manipulated nicotine levels by finding a way to "trick" the testing machines so that light cigarettes would show lower tar and nicotine levels, when in fact Philip Morris knew that humans smoking the cigarettes would consume similar nicotine levels as experienced from regular cigarettes. Philip Morris ignores the fact that instead of changing its labeling, it could possibly have designed a light cigarette that would actually deliver less tar and nicotine in the hands of a consumer. Plaintiffs cite Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd., et al., to support its position that post-1969 claims that the tobacco industry concealed facts are not preempted when a plaintiff alleges that the defendants "knowingly designed, manufactured and distributed a product which they knew was both carcinogenic and addictive and, thus, not fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended." Plaintiffs are not asking Philip Morris to change its labeling. Plaintiffs are seeking an action in redhibition because the product itself was defective. The FTC method of testing gave lower tar and nicotine measurements than what each light cigarette actually delivered to a human smoker. Hence, the product was not reasonably fit for its intended purpose-to deliver lower tar and nicotine. Because this cause of action does not impose a requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health with respect to advertising or promotion, it is not preempted by the Labeling Act."
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.
Plaintiffs claimed breach of express and implied warranties and intentional misrepresentation, arguing that Philip Morris U.S.A. and others marketed "light" cigarette brands as if they had lower levels of tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes, when in fact these cigarettes were as harmful as regular cigarettes. In their motion for summary judgment, defendants argued, among other things, that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and barred by the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (LUTPA) which exempts certain conduct from liability. The Court found that plaintiffs' cause of action was not preempted by the Labeling Act. The Court granted defendants' motion to the extent that plaintiffs' claims made pursuant to LUTPA will be dismissed. Otherwise the Court denied defendants' motion.