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.

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 companies challenged the language of the corrective statements ordered by the court. A previous decision upheld all of the corrective statements with the exception of the introductory sentence. In this decision, the district court found that a revised introductory statement submitted by the government is acceptable because it removes any reference to tobacco companies’ prior deceptive conduct. The judge castigated the tobacco companies for attempting to rewrite the corrective statements entirely, calling it a “ridiculous – a waste of precious time, energy, and money for all concerned – and a loss of information for the public.” The court also refused to change any of the terms in the previously agreed upon consent order. 

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 99-2496 (GK) (Feb. 8, 2016).

  • United States
  • Feb 8, 2016
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Parties

Plaintiff United States of America

Defendant

  • Altria Group, formerly Philip Morris Companies Inc.
  • American Tobacco Company, Directly and as Successor to the Tobacco Interest of American Brands
  • Philip Morris USA, Inc., formerly known as Philip Morris Incorporated, et al.

Third Party

  • American Cancer Society
  • American Heart Association
  • Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights
  • ITG Brands LLC
  • National African American Tobacco Prevention Network
  • Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"Defendants also argue that the statements proposed by the Government and Intervenors do not meet the First Amendment standard. In its 2012 decision, this Court examined the issue of First Amendment standards for commercial speech, and concluded that Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626,651 (1985), articulated the correct standard to apply. The Court of Appeals never questioned this ruling. Consequently, this Court sees no reason whatsoever to reexamine that decision. In order to buttress their argument, Defendants rely upon American Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 760 F.3d 18, 26 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc). However, that case was discussing disclosures aimed at "informing consumers about a particular product trait," by "making ... 'purely factual and uncontroversial information' accessible to the recipients." Id. (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals' most recent decision in this case makes it clear that under RICO "disseminating corrective statements on the proposed topics would prevent and restrain future RICO violations by '[r]equiring Defendants to reveal the previously hidden truth about their products."' In this case, the five topics contained in the statements are aimed at preventing and restraining the Defendants from continuing their fraudulent and deceptive activities. Id. In other words, American Meat Inst. is totally distinguishable from this case."
"Despite the fact that the Court of Appeals accepted the five topics that the Court had chosen to include and had rejected one sentence in the preamble designed to introduce the beginning of each of those topics, Defendants submitted a 40 page opening brief in opposition to the opening briefs of the Government and the Public Health Intervenors. In that brief, Defendants rewrote much of the five statements already approved by the Court of Appeals. Thus, when all is said and done, Defendants would now have this Court return to the drawing board and start the process all over again. That is ridiculous -- a waste of precious time, energy, and money for all concerned -- and a loss of information for the public. The Court has no intention of following that path, although it is obvious that Defendants are, once again, attempting to stall any final outcome to this long-standing litigation."