The case is a class action against Philip Morris challenging the design, marketing, and advertising of two brands of Philip Morris cigarettes. Plaintiffs alleged that the marketing of Cambridge Lights and Marlboro Lights was deceptive. The case was based on these brands' use of the descriptors "light and "lowered tar," which were deceptive or misleading because they failed to inform the smoker that the actual amounts of tar and nicotine were much higher than the results of the then-used Cambridge Filter Method employed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This test used a mechanical smoking machine to read the amounts of tar and nicotine contained in a cigarette, but it also failed to take into account other factors like ventilation holes, channels, or individual smoking habits that would affect the actual amounts of these substances ingested by the smoker.
The case had originally been filed in Arkansas state court, but then removed to federal court. Watson and Lawson, as class representatives, demanded the case be removed to state court, but the District Court rejected their motion. The class representatives filed the interlocutory appeal at issue. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision to allow removal of the case to Federal Court. Because removal is permitted where the a person or entity acted "under color of" a federal agency or officer, the issue turned on whether the FTC's involvement with the tobacco industry was sufficient to say that the tobacco industry's actions with regard to the packaging and labeling of their "light" or "low-tar" products was done under the direction of the FTC.
In finding that that the tobacco industry was acting "under color of" the FTC, the Court noted that the FTC exercised "comprehensive, detailed regulation," including developing and modifying the testing method, and conducted "ongoing monitoring." The FTC had also given specific directives to the tobacco industry regarding the specific manner in which the industry agreed to disclose the tar and nicotine ratings in advertisements. The Court also found that there was a compulsion upon the industry to act in compliance with these directives and to advertise their ratings as determined by the Cambridge Filter Method. Ultimately, the Court found that "the acts regulated by the FTC form the basis" of the class action at issue. However, the Court noted that this ruling "reaches no conclusion on the merits of Philip Morris' preemption defense" and that this ruling was solely for the applicability of the removal statute.
Watson v. Philip Morris, 420 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2005)
United States
Aug 25, 2005
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
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)
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.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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.
"We are convinced that the record in this case shows a level of compulsion that establishes that Philip
Morris was indeed "acting under" the direction of a federal officer. The FTC effectively used its coercive
power to cause the tobacco companies to enter the agreement. The FTC made the policy decision to
pursue a voluntary agreement instead of proceeding by formal rulemaking. The tobacco industry first
proposed an agreement on October 23, 1970, which was just over two months after the FTC announced
an intention to make a formal rule requiring disclosure of the Cambridge Filter Method tar and nicotine
ratings. This "voluntary agreement" was a substitute for a formal rule. The industry almost certainly
would not have proposed the agreement if the FTC had not threatened to make a formal rule. Though the
FTC did not act formally, the effect of its actions still compelled the tobacco companies to adhere to a
testing and advertising standard that was prompted by the FTC. The FTC agreed with the industry that a
voluntary agreement was preferable to the formalities of rulemaking."
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.
The case is a class action against Philip Morris challenging the design, marketing, and advertising of two brands of Philip Morris cigarettes. Plaintiffs alleged that the marketing of Cambridge Lights and Marlboro Lights was deceptive. The case was based on these brands' use of the descriptors "light and "lowered tar," which were deceptive or misleading because they failed to inform the smoker that the actual amounts of tar and nicotine were much higher than the results of the then-used Cambridge Filter Method employed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This test used a mechanical smoking machine to read the amounts of tar and nicotine contained in a cigarette, but it also failed to take into account other factors like ventilation holes, channels, or individual smoking habits that would affect the actual amounts of these substances ingested by the smoker.
The case had originally been filed in Arkansas state court, but then removed to federal court. Watson and Lawson, as class representatives, demanded the case be removed to state court, but the District Court rejected their motion. The class representatives filed the interlocutory appeal at issue. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision to allow removal of the case to Federal Court. Because removal is permitted where the a person or entity acted "under color of" a federal agency or officer, the issue turned on whether the FTC's involvement with the tobacco industry was sufficient to say that the tobacco industry's actions with regard to the packaging and labeling of their "light" or "low-tar" products was done under the direction of the FTC.
In finding that that the tobacco industry was acting "under color of" the FTC, the Court noted that the FTC exercised "comprehensive, detailed regulation," including developing and modifying the testing method, and conducted "ongoing monitoring." The FTC had also given specific directives to the tobacco industry regarding the specific manner in which the industry agreed to disclose the tar and nicotine ratings in advertisements. The Court also found that there was a compulsion upon the industry to act in compliance with these directives and to advertise their ratings as determined by the Cambridge Filter Method. Ultimately, the Court found that "the acts regulated by the FTC form the basis" of the class action at issue. However, the Court noted that this ruling "reaches no conclusion on the merits of Philip Morris' preemption defense" and that this ruling was solely for the applicability of the removal statute.