This case involves a challenge to a Massachusetts statute requiring manufacturers of cigarettes to provide the Commonwealth's Department of Health (DOH) specific information regarding ingredients and nicotine yield ratings of their cigarettes. The Plaintiff cigarette companies sued, arguing that the law was unconstitutional based upon the principle of preemption, arguing that any regulation requiring the reporting of tobacco ingredients was preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA). The Court held that the FCLAA did not preempt the Massachusetts state statute, and that the Massachusetts statute was in harmony with the FCLAA.
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.
This case involves a challenge to a Massachusetts statute requiring manufacturers of cigarettes to provide the Commonwealth's Department of Health (DOH) specific information regarding ingredients and nicotine yield ratings of their cigarettes. The Plaintiff cigarette companies sued, arguing that the law was unconstitutional based upon the principle of preemption, arguing that any regulation requiring the reporting of tobacco ingredients was preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA). The Court held that the FCLAA did not preempt the Massachusetts state statute, and that the Massachusetts statute was in harmony with the FCLAA.