In this class action against a cigarette manufacturer in an Arkansas state court under Arkansas state business practices laws, plaintiffs claimed that the manufacturer had misled consumers by deceptively manipulating its "lights" cigarettes to register a lower content of tar and nicotine on the Cambridge Filter Method (CFM) test than that actually consumed by smokers when using its product. The defendant moved to remove the case to federal court, arguing that because the Federal Trade Commission had approved the CFM as a manner of testing cigarette content, the manufacturer "act[ed] under" an "agency" or "officer" of the United States when testing cigarettes using the CFM, thus fulfilling the conditions for removal detailed in federal statutory law. The Court held that removal was improper, finding that the language of the statute required not merely complying with administrative regulations but "assist[ing]" with or "carry[ing] out" the implementation of the law.
Watson, et al. v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., et al., 551 U.S. 142, Supreme Court of the United States (2007).
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.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
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.
"Assuming this timeline, Philip Morris’ argument nonetheless contains a fatal flaw—a flaw of omission. Although Philip Morris uses the word “delegation” or variations many times throughout its brief, we have found no evidence of any delegation of legal authority from the FTC to the industry association to undertake testing on the Government agency’s behalf. Nor is there evidence of any contract, any payment, any employer/employee relationship, or any principal/agent arrangement. We have examined all of the documents to which Philip Morris and certain supporting amici refer. Some of those documents refer to cigarette testing specifications, others refer to the FTC’s inspection and supervision of the industry laboratory’s testing, and still others refer to the FTC’s prohibition of statements in cigarette advertising. But none of these documents establish the type of formal delegation that might authorize Philip Morris to remove the case....
And, though we find considerable regulatory detail and supervision, we can find nothing that warrants treating the FTC/Philip Morris relationship as distinct from the usual regulator/regulated relationship. This relationship, as we have explained, cannot be construed as bringing Philip Morris within the terms of the statute."
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 this class action against a cigarette manufacturer in an Arkansas state court under Arkansas state business practices laws, plaintiffs claimed that the manufacturer had misled consumers by deceptively manipulating its "lights" cigarettes to register a lower content of tar and nicotine on the Cambridge Filter Method (CFM) test than that actually consumed by smokers when using its product. The defendant moved to remove the case to federal court, arguing that because the Federal Trade Commission had approved the CFM as a manner of testing cigarette content, the manufacturer "act[ed] under" an "agency" or "officer" of the United States when testing cigarettes using the CFM, thus fulfilling the conditions for removal detailed in federal statutory law. The Court held that removal was improper, finding that the language of the statute required not merely complying with administrative regulations but "assist[ing]" with or "carry[ing] out" the implementation of the law.