Calif. Court Dismisses Tobacco Ad Suit

Yahoo News ^ | 13 September 2002 | Deena Beasley

[SheLion]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed against major U.S. cigarette manufacturers over children's exposure to cigarette advertising during the 1990s, citing freedom-of-speech protections, the companies said on Friday.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager late Thursday dismissed the suit, which was filed by Devin Daniels on behalf of all California minors who smoked between April 1994 and December 1999 and were exposed to cigarette advertising.

The San Diego law firm representing the plaintiffs, Blumenthal & Markham, said it would appeal the decision.

"This is a common-sense decision recognizing that our advertising is lawful and protected by the First Amendment," Daniel Donahue, deputy general counsel at R.J. Reynolds, the No. 2 tobacco, said in a statement.

"Reynolds Tobacco does not want kids to smoke, and we advertise our brands only to adult smokers."

The Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based cigarette company, a unit of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. (NYSE:RJR - News) ,in 1988 launched the controversial ad campaign featuring cartoon character Joe Camel, leading anti-smoking activists to accuse the company of illegally targeting ads to young teenagers.

RJR, which makes cigarette brands including Winston and Camel, voluntarily pulled the ads several years ago.

"We do not believe that the law allows tobacco companies to target their ads to kids. If it isn't a crime, it is open season on kids for new tobacco companies," said attorney Norman Blumenthal, referring to a multi-state settlement agreement with existing cigarette makers that prohibits marketing to minors.

Philip Morris, the world's No. 1 tobacco company and a defendant in the suit, said in a statement that it believes the court's reasoning is correct and fairly applies the constitutional principles raised by this type of litigation.

Similar lawsuits are pending in other jurisdictions, including Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington DC.

"The dismissal is a setback," said Edward Sweda, senior attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project in Boston.

"In the ongoing battle between tobacco companies and consumers, the predators have won a round," he added.

Prager cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the First Amendment constrains state efforts to limit advertising of legal tobacco products, a Congressional ban on electronic advertising of cigarettes and the Federal Trade Commission's regulatory authority as reasons for dismissing the case.

"Defendants' speech, including the advertisement at issue, is neither deceptive nor related to an unlawful activity and is therefore entitled to First Amendment protection," the judge said in his decision.

The FTC in 1999 dropped a case against R.J. Reynolds over the Joe Camel advertising campaign after key tobacco companies reached a huge $206 billion settlement with 46 states.

Shares of RJR, down 7 percent year-to-date, closed up 42 cents at $52.31 on the New York Stock Exchange. Shares of Philip Morris ended down 12 cents at $46.30 on the New York Stock Exchange.

[SheLion]

We won a round.......in Kookiefornia.  Might be hope for that state after all.  A sensible judge!  He's my kind of judge!

As for Big T advertising to Teens:  has it EVER occurred to ANY OF THESE IDIOTS, that it's the EDITORS in the magazines that add Tobacco ADS????  It takes TWO my friends!  Big T doesn't hold a gun to some Editors head.  Why isn't the likes of Ed Sweda going after the EDITORS???

"In the ongoing battle between tobacco companies and consumers, the predators have won a round," he added.

Ah! So old Ed Sweda calls us PREDATORS now. LOL!  Guess what we call YOU, ED! heh!

As for getting rid of the Joe Camel ads?  Guess what?  We saved them ALL you slime ball!

    

 

[SheLion]

[Vidalia]

Anybody remember how binding that agreement to tether Joe Camal actually is?

Would Reynolds actually bring back Joe after an intense write in effort (by responsible young adults, no less)?

I'd bet my ass camel on it...

[Just another Joe]

If it isn't a crime, it is open season on kids for new tobacco companies," said attorney Norman Blumenthal, referring to a multi-state settlement agreement with existing cigarette makers that prohibits marketing to minors.

WHAT new tobacco companies?

[SheLion]

WHAT new tobacco companies?

Who the hell knows, Joe!!! I was wondering that myself.

[SheLion]

Joe, come on over to Spinner's chat room. We are all there. Spinner, Gabz, JohnL and more. Come on over and talk with us.

[Just another Joe]

Give me a link or a web address.

[Just another Joe]

FReepmail it to me.

[Jaidyn]

Kids don't start smoking because of advertising. They could care less what their first cigarette is. It is after they have been smoking a while they check out other brands. The first puff I took was an unfiltered Camel. Then I tried Pall Mall because they were longer. Finally, I tried and stayed with Winston.

[SheLion]

Smokers United

Scroll down to Real Time Talk click on that. Then choose your name and your in!!!

[Just another Joe]

Finally, I tried and stayed with Winston.

I was a marlboro man myself. Either that or Dunhill red.
That was until I started stuffing my own and found Samson Milde Shag.
Wouldn't go back now if you paid me.

[Great Dane]

Great........... it's about time, do you suppose the judge might have thought of the possibility that booze ads could be targeted as well.

[monkeyshine]

Just because it's a cartoon doesn't mean it's for kids. Did you ever try to train a real camel to pose on a motorcycle wearing a leather jacket?

[Gabz]

LOL!!!! - great line!

[SheLion]

Great........... it's about time, do you suppose the judge might have thought of the possibility that booze ads could be targeted as well.

Well, this judge is my kind of judge. He probably isn't in the "pocket" of anyone......yet. But you could be right: booze could be next. I hope he thought "Where is this all going to end?!"

[SheLion]

Just because it's a cartoon doesn't mean it's for kids. Did you ever try to train a real camel to pose on a motorcycle wearing a leather jacket?

Even though Joe Camel is really cute, I never saw him with a gal like THAT, either. LOL!

Camels spit more often then smoke. Hey! Maybe they chew? That would explain all that spitting. haha!

[I'm_With_Orwell]

Hi SheLion,

As for getting rid of the Joe Camel ads?

Yeah, Joe Camel was definitely aimed at "The Children". Of course it had nothing to do with the fact that the cigarettes are called "Camel". No, that's far too obvious.

Well, I guess Toyota is lining itself up for massive lawsuits in the future. Where we are, the Rav 4 SUV is heavily advertised around the macho exploits of - you guessed it - a camel! Well, not a real camel, but a man dressed in a camel suit. Merchandising has gone through the roof, including kids' fluffy toys, like so:-

Shame, Toyota, Shame!!! Never have I seen a more blatant attempt to induce underage driving. (After all, cartoon camels don't appeal to grown-ups, do they? It must be aimed at "The Children"!)

[SheLion]

Are you serious? This is a joke, right? LOL!

[jdontom]

Just posted Here that Kalif. is going to lower taxes on some Cigarette Brands...Win #2

[I'm_With_Orwell]

Are you serious? This is a joke, right? LOL!

No, I'm serious!! The ads are an absolute riot. One has a camel as Jackie Chan, one as Evil Kenevil, one as a rockabilly and one as an afro-toting rapper. They're hilarous!

However, be that as it may, I have not developed an overwhelming urge to go out and buy a Rav4 because they have a cool camel in their ads!