Light Cigarettes Could Carry Heavy Price Tag for Philip Morris

Boston, MAA landmark decision brought down by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, has paved the way for smokers to sue cigarette manufacturers for misleading advertising. The ruling, announced in the media March 19, effectively green lights a 10-year-old lawsuit against cigarette giant Philip Morris. The suit alleges that the use of the terms 'light' and 'low tar' in conjunction with Philip Morris's Marlboro cigarettes are deceptive and that consumers are not at any reduced risk from purchasing or smoking 'light' cigarettes.

According to the lawsuit, smokers of 'light' cigarettes ultimately take in the same amounts of tar and nicotine as smokers of regular cigarettes because 'light' cigarette smokers compensate for the lighter tar and nicotine levels by taking deeper, longer inhalations.

This decision is the second such ruling allowing for large tobacco class action suits to go forward. In December 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Altria vs. Good that the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not pre-empt a Maine unfair business practice law. The plaintiffs in that case made the same allegations as those in Massachusetts case. As a result of the December ruling a number of tobacco related lawsuits against Altira, formerly known as Philip Morris, got the green light. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow the suits.

What is Pre-Emption—Why Does it Matter?

Pre-emption is a tactic used to block state lawsuits against companies by citing federal laws that could work in the companies' favor and that supersede-or pre-empt state laws. However, pre-emption has come under fire in recent months.

All sorts of companies have used the 'pre-emption' argument, ranging from pharmaceuticals to wireless communications companies. Recently, the case of Wyeth vs. Levine broke new ground in the pharmaceutical arena. In the much-anticipated decision, the US Supreme Court Justices ruled 6-3 that personal injury lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies are not pre-empted by federal laws. This paved the way for a $6 million settlement for Diana Levine, who alleged she had lost an arm following a botched injection of an anti-nausea drug. Levine was a musician and could no longer make her living doing what she was trained for because of the loss of her arm.

Levine filed a lawsuit against Wyeth alleging that the drug's labeling did not carry adequate warnings about the risks associated with Phenergan, the drug she was given as an injection.

Wyeth had argued that because the labelling met federal standards set by the Food and Drug Administration, state law on the matter was pre-empted, which as we now know, didn't fly. And it would seem that a trend is emerging in favor of the consumer.

In the Massachusetts tobacco case, Philip Morris also argued that the state laws were pre-empted by federal legislation. But that didn't fly, either. So the suit will go to court. Ultimately, the argument comes down to whether or not Philip Morris knowingly sought to deceive customers by marketing their cigarettes in such a way as to promote 'light' cigarettes as less harmful than regular strength brands.

But Philip Morris does have a victorious track record. In 1998, a settlement agreement was struck between the company and 46 states, which stipulated that Philip Morris pay approximately $200 billion over 25 years to address health-care reimbursements and other expenses in those states. Philip Morris was also forced to adhere to a ban of its logo-branded clothing and cartoon characters, like Joe Camel, and restrictions around its cigarette advertising in general.