Tyrer v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al. (In re: Light Cigarettes Marketing Sales Practices Litigation)

Plaintiffs sought class certification as purchasers of light cigarettes who were harmed by defendants' alleged misleading advertising and marketing of these products. The Court denied class certification, finding that even though the plaintiffs met the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements, plaintiffs failed to show causation and injury. In addition, the proposed class included members who lacked standing to sue in federal courts.

Tyrer v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., 271 F.R.D. 402 (D. Me. 2010).

  • United States
  • Nov 24, 2010
  • United States District Court for the District of Maine
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Miles Tyrer

Defendant

  • Altria Group, Inc
  • Philip Morris USA, Inc.

Legislation Cited

California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code, § 1750, et. seq.

California’s False Advertising Act (FAL), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500, et. seq.;4

California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, et. seq.

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"Despite this strong policy in favor of certification, individual issues of injury, causation, and affirmative defenses defeat the superiority of class treatment. Individual issues surrounding who qualifies as a class member and the damages each member is owed further undermine the superiority of class certification. Because cigarettes are inexpensive and purchased frequently, it is unlikely that class members will have receipts or other ways of objectively proving purchase history. See Ludke v. Philip Morris Cos. Inc., 2001 WL 1673791, at *3 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2001) (warning that certification of a class of cigarette purchasers would lead to fraud because of the difficulty in proving damages); Tyrer’s Supp. Resp. to Defs.’ Request for Prod. of Docs. Numbers 1, 7 and 8 for Purposes of Class Cert. Attach. 43 at 3 (Docket # 204) (the only class representative to produce a receipt and producing only one). The Plaintiffs have not proposed a plan for how the Court should deal with these fact-intensive inquiries."
"Here, the proposed classes include class members without standing. Each state’s class effectively includes everyone who purchased light cigarettes in the respective limitations periods, and this group necessarily includes class members who knew light cigarettes were not healthier than other cigarettes, notwithstanding Defendants alleged representations to the contrary. Those class members were not injured by the Defendants’ misconduct and thus do not have standing. Furthermore, in view of the proliferation of information decrying the health risks of all cigarettes, there is no telling how many potential class members are similarly situated."