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.
In 2022, as a means of preventing future RICO violations, the district court ordered the tobacco companies to issue corrective statements on five topics in which they had misled the public, including the adverse health effects of smoking and the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine. The tobacco industry fought the point-of-sale corrective statements in court for 16 years. The corrective statement signs negotiated by the parties will be displayed in nearly 200,000 retail stores for 21 months – from October 1, 2023 through June 30, 2025.
In this decision, the court clarified that HeatSticks, consumables for the IQOS heated tobacco brand, fall within the definition of the term “cigarettes”. Therefore, HeatSticks are subject to the same anti-fraud provisions and corrective statements. However, the court explained that HeatSticks do not have to abide by the same market restrictions as some of the cigarette brands; meaning that Philip Morris may include FDA-authorized reduced-exposure claims on HeatSticks advertising materials.
Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund was one of several public health intervenors.
United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 99-CV-2496 (PLF) (2023).
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.
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.
"Regardless of whether HeatSticks are smoked or produce smoke, that an aerosol is produced and inhaled by a HeatSticks user is sufficiently similar to how smoke is produced and inhaled by a conventional cigarette smoker. See Pls. Mot. at Ex. 7 (IQOS frequently-asked questions page explains that “HeatSticks are designed for the same length of time and number of puffs as traditional cigarettes” and that HeatSticks “provide tobacco taste that replicates as much as possible what adult smokers expect”); Oral Arg. Tr. at 5:15-21 (plaintiffs’ counsel argued that “HeatSticks have also been designed to have the essential characteristics of a traditional cigarette. . . . The same number of puffs, the same tobacco taste”). In this case, “the context of the court’s decision to issue an injunction” resolves the ambiguity identified by the parties about Order #1015’s use of the term “cigarettes.” Common Cause v. Nuclear Reg. Comm’n, 674 F.2d at 927. Judge Kessler’s opinion referenced both “less hazardous” and “electrically heated” cigarettes, and this Court therefore concludes that HeatSticks are “cigarettes” for the purpose of understanding Order #1015. See United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d at 399, 430."
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 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.
In 2022, as a means of preventing future RICO violations, the district court ordered the tobacco companies to issue corrective statements on five topics in which they had misled the public, including the adverse health effects of smoking and the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine. The tobacco industry fought the point-of-sale corrective statements in court for 16 years. The corrective statement signs negotiated by the parties will be displayed in nearly 200,000 retail stores for 21 months – from October 1, 2023 through June 30, 2025.
In this decision, the court clarified that HeatSticks, consumables for the IQOS heated tobacco brand, fall within the definition of the term “cigarettes”. Therefore, HeatSticks are subject to the same anti-fraud provisions and corrective statements. However, the court explained that HeatSticks do not have to abide by the same market restrictions as some of the cigarette brands; meaning that Philip Morris may include FDA-authorized reduced-exposure claims on HeatSticks advertising materials.
Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund was one of several public health intervenors.