The US Supreme Court on Monday revitalized some tobacco lawsuits when it declined to permit Philip Morris, the big US cigarette maker, to fight cases involving deceptive marketing of ‘light’ cigarettes in federal court, rather than in more plaintiff-friendly state trials. The Supreme Court inverted an appeals court verdict that a federal court should hear the class-action suit, Watson v. Philip Morris. The lawsuit accuses that Philip Morris has breached Arkansas laws with deceptive marketing of its light cigarette brands Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights. The court unanimously ruled that Philip Morris could not transfer the classaction from the Arkansas state court, where it was originally filed, to federal court. US firms usually aspire to fight class-action lawsuits in federal court, which they consider as moderately good to corporate defendants.
In the filed lawsuit of Watson v. Philip Morris, consumers are asserting that the tobacco firm has contravened Arkansas’ unfair business practice law by advertising selected cigarettes as ‘light’ when the company was maneuvering the results of tests in order to make it appeared as if the cigarettes contained less tar and nicotine. The suit had further alleged that the firm manipulated cigarette design and used other techniques that caused its cigarettes to register lower levels of harmful contents on an industry standard test than smokers would actually get.
The subsidiary of Altria contended that the case should be placed in federal court in Little Rock, Ark., as the firm was regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. The federal court approved to take the case, on the ground that Philip Morris has employed the government approved procedure of testing cigarettes and consequently the company was being sued for ‘acting under’ the Federal Trade Commission.
Philip Morris had argued that the Federal Trade Commission was a ‘federal officer’ and since there was an accord in place for standardized benchmarks and tests on light smokes with it, the case is eligible for federal court under a ‘removal statute.’ However, Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, conflicted the view arguing, ‘the fact that a federal agency directs, supervises and monitors a company’s activities in considerable detail does not bring that company within the scope of the removal statute.’
Reacting over the verdict, Philip Morris said the US Supreme Court’s decision to remand a suit over the marketing of light cigarettes to state court will not affect the outcome of the case. William Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA’s associate general counsel said, ‘Today’s ruling is narrow and merely determined whether the Watson case should be heard in federal court or state court. We have compelling defenses to the Watson claim that have been advanced in state courts.’
On the other hand, speaking over the issue Edward Sweda, senior attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law has said that the ruling will also ‘benefit plaintiffs and their attorneys in other ‘light’ cigarette litigation since Philip Morris’ attempt to evade state law simply by virtue of the fact that it is regulated has failed’.
The verdict, though procedural, may also have far reaching implications on the tobacco industry. The tobacco firms have been contending that the government’s oversight of the testing program protects them from suit over light cigarettes in any court. The decision that topples a lower court decision, may also affect several pending lawsuits against Philip Morris and Reynolds American Inc.’s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco unit, including Missouri and Minnesota cases in which the issue has already surfaced.
