U.S. Supreme Court to decide if 'light' cigarette smokers can sue under state law

Does federal law preempt "light" cigarette smokers' label- related deceptive marketing claims against tobacco companies that were brought under state law?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a 1st Circuit decision on this issue.

In that case, three long-time smokers filed a class action against Philip Morris, alleging the company violated Maine's unfair trade practices law by deceptively marketing Marlboro Lights.

The plaintiffs claimed that Philip Morris advertised that smokers of its light cigarette would be exposed to less tar and nicotine when it knew that, because of the addictive nature of nicotine, most consumers would smoke more cigarettes.

Philip Morris argued that the claims were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. Section 1334(b) of the Act provides that "[n]o requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under state law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this chapter."

But the 1st Circuit concluded the plaintiffs' claims could go forward under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. (505 U.S. 504).

"Cipollone reasoned that 'each phrase' in Sect. 1334(b) - not just the phrase 'with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes' - 'limits the universe of common-law claims pre-empted by the statute.' So '[t]he appropriate inquiry is not whether a claim challenges the propriety of advertising and promotion, but whether the claim would require the imposition under state law of a requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health with respect to advertising and promotion.' A claim is not preempted, then, merely because it is 'grounded on' the advertising or promotion of cigarettes with [Act]-compliant labels," the court said.

The 1st Circuit concluded that, because the plaintiffs alleged that Philip Morris breached a general state-law duty not to deceive, "it falls within Cipollone's express holding that 'claims based on allegedly false statements of material fact made in advertisements' survive [the Act's] preemption."

A decision from the Supreme Court is expected later this term.

Altria Group, Inc. v. Good U.S. Supreme Court No. 07-562. Certiorari granted Jan. 18, 2008. Ruling below: 501 F.3d 29 (1st Cir.).

Credit: Lawyers USA Staff