Supreme Court Sides With Philip Morris

AP ^ | 11/27/6

[SmithL]

The Supreme Court on Monday sided with Philip Morris USA, refusing to disturb a court ruling that threw out a $10.1 billion verdict over the company's "light" cigarettes.

The court issued its order without comment.

Last year, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out the massive fraud judgment against Philip Morris, a unit of the Altria Group Inc., in a class-action lawsuit involving "light" cigarettes. Because the Federal Trade Commission allowed companies to characterize their cigarettes as "light" and "low tar," Philip Morris could not be held liable under state law even if the terms it used could be found false or misleading, the state court said.

The case involved 1.1 million people who bought "light" cigarettes in Illinois. They claimed Philip Morris knew when it introduced such cigarettes in 1971 that they were no healthier than regular cigarettes, but hid that information and the fact that light cigarettes actually had a more toxic form of tar.

An Illinois judge ruled in favor of the smokers in March 2003,

[SmithL]

Now charge the attack lawyers for all court costs.

[ccmay]

As much as I hate smoking, this is the correct decision.

-ccm

[The Blitherer]

I have a personal dislike of smoking as well, but that's all it is, a personal dislike. These people need to start taking some personal responsibility.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I wonder if these people passed around health disclaimers regarding secondhand smoke to the public every time they smoked in public.

[doc30]

Because the Federal Trade Commission allowed companies to characterize their cigarettes as "light" and "low tar," Philip Morris could not be held liable under state law even if the terms it used could be found false or misleading, the state court said.

In other words, blame the government for establishing the criteria for 'light' cigarettes. Phillip Morris simply followed the law. TO me, the various governments don't want to lose the tax revenue from cigarettes, so they will do everything they can to get money from this sector without killing the business. If the government were really interested in health, then tobacco would be banned, just like pot or cocaine.

[Jake The Goose]

Imagine the lawyers who just saw $4b go up "in smoke".

Bummer

[RebelBanker]

The courts acting rationally??

[xowboy]

Ping

[Always Right]

You mean light cirgarettes are not healthy?

[CottShop]

I agree! Those Pirrahna laywers have profitted enough while the victims of cancer have had to have their lives dragged through the mud and received nothing! Clintons brother in law was one of the lawyers on the case too- imagine that! http://sacredscoop.com

[Sacajaweau]

Our county took the early cigarette windfall money...and used it for construction projects. Nothing for hospitals or health related projects. We had to fight for school nurses because it was "expensive".

[absolootezer0]

You mean light cirgarettes are not healthy?

they're a pretty good comparison to the health benefits of drinking diet soda rather than regular.

[pabianice]

How wonderful! Those tort lawyers are out six years and several million dollars in time!

[xowboy]

Just a shame isn't it. Ha ha

[ccmay]

Our county took the early cigarette windfall money...and used it for construction projects.

Sounds like the county supervisors have some contractor brothers-in-law. Follow the money.

-ccm

[doug from upland]

I hate the lying, disgusting tobacco executives. But I hate the scumbag attorneys in this case more.

[zendari]

Why does "light" imply healthy?

[SheLion]

Thanks for the ping!

[SheLion]

[Lurker]

So SCOTUS finally got one right.

Even a blind pig.....

L