TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

United States v. Philip Morris USA, et al.

In 1999, the United States filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the major cigarette manufacturers and related trade organizations alleging that defendants, while acting as an enterprise, fraudulently misled American consumers for decades about the risks and dangers of cigarette smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke in violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In 2006, the court found that defendants violated civil provisions of RICO and that there was a reasonable likelihood that defendants would continue to violate RICO in the future. On appeal, the district court’s findings were upheld, in part, vacated, in part, and remanded, in part, to the district court. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from both sides in the case in June 2010, the district court began to implement the 2006 final order.

This opinion by the District Court specifies language the tobacco companies must publish to correct previous false and misleading conduct by the tobacco companies.  The court announces five subject headings each with specific corrective statements. After describing the required language the court provides a detailed legal analysis of the First Amendment grounds supporting the requirements.  The court then dismisses other alternative challenges brought by the tobacco companies.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. Civil Action No. 99-2496 (D.D.C., 2012)

  • United States
  • Nov 27, 2012
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
View Case History

Parties

Plaintiff United States

Defendant Philip Morris USA Inc. et. al.

Legislation Cited

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (as amended), 18 USC Ch. 96

Related Documents

Appendix A - Corrective Statement Citations Appendix B - Corrective Statement Implementation Details

Type of Litigation

Government Enforcement Action
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.

Tobacco Control Topics

Contents and Disclosures Measures
Measures for testing, measuring, regulating, or disclosing the contents and emissions of tobacco products. (See FCTC Arts. 9 and 10)
Packaging and Labeling Measures
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)
Education
Measures to promote and strengthen public awareness of tobacco control issues. (See FCTC Art. 12)
Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship
Measures restricting any form of direct or indirect tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. (See FCTC Art. 13)
Liability
Measures dealing with criminal and civil liability, including compensation. (See FCTC Art. 19)

Substantive Issues

Right to Freedom of Expression
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
Right to Access to Information
A violation of the public’s right to information. The tobacco industry may claim that advertising, promotion or sponsorship, or packaging regulations limit the industry’s ability to communicate information to their customers and therefore infringes on the customer’s right to receive information, and to distinguish one product from another. Alternatively, public health advocates may claim that tobacco industry misinformation violates their right to accurate information or that government must be transparent in its dealings with the tobacco industry.
Right to Procedural Due Process
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Right to Property
A violation of property rights, sometimes in the form of an expropriation or a taking by the government. The tobacco industry may argue that regulations amount to a taking of property rights because they prevent the use of intellectual property such as trademarks.
Consumer Protection Violation

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.

Defamation
Public statements may be defamatory, because they falsely provide a negative image or harm the reputation of individuals, organizations, or corporations.
Industry-Perpetrated Fraud
The tobacco industry may have perpetrated a fraud upon the public or the courts by presenting false information or deliberately hiding known-facts.
Sanction / Reprimand
Courts may sanction or reprimand parties for especially egregious behavior during court proceedings.
Undue Burden
A discussion on whether the regulations impose an undue burden on the tobacco industry. This argument may involve the costs of implementing regulatory measures.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2024 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by