The U. S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments at 10:00 A.M. on Monday, October 6th in a case (Altria Group, Inc., et al. v. Good, et al., No. 07-562) to determine whether Philip Morris will receive, despite a lack of Congressional authorization, total immunity from consumer protection lawsuits brought by smokers of “light” cigarettes.
 
            In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reinstated a lawsuit on behalf of Maine residents who smoked Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights.  The lawsuit contends that the manufacturer violated Maine’s Unfair Trade Practices Act by engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or practices by making affirmative representations that some of its brands are “light” and deliver “lowered tar and nicotine” to smokers when in reality those brands do not do so and the company knew that they do not do so.
 
            If the U.S. Supreme Court affirms the First Circuit’s opinion, the more than 40 light cigarette lawsuits in over 20 states will be given the green light to proceed eventually to trial.  Seeking to evade accountability for its actions over more than 30 years in perpetrating its light cigarette scam, Philip Morris argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn its 16-year-old precedent in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, and grant it total immunity from lawsuits based on consumer protection statutes, even though Congress never pre-empted such lawsuits.
 
            “Philip Morris is seeking nothing less than an extreme act of legislating from the bench, effectively re-writing the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act – four decades after it was enacted – to grant the company absolute immunity from lawsuits that allege violations of state consumer protection laws,” said Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project, a project of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, which is based at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston.  Mr. Sweda, who will attend Monday’s oral arguments, concluded that “such a result would reward, rather than prevent, the deliberate defrauding of American consumers.”       
                                                                                                     

 

-- 30 --