Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘light cigarettes’

Altria v Good affirmed 5-4

The Supreme Court rejected (h/t Beck/Herrmann) tobacco companies’ argument that the FTC’s use of the Cambridge Filter Method standard of measuring tar and nicotine impliedly preempted lawsuits against the tobacco companies for advertising their cigarettes using data from the Cambridge Filter Method standard of measuring tar and nicotine.  The fact that the federal government disavowed preemption lends another data point in support of Professor Catherine Sharkey’s argument that the Court tends to defer to the Solicitor General’s position on preemption disputes.  Justice Thomas’s dissent, which would undo the unworkable Cipollone plurality, appears to me to be the stronger argument, but it didn’t carry the Kennedy Five.

The fact pattern is the subject of numerous multi-billion dollar lawsuits against tobacco companies alleging that their sales of light cigarettes are fraudulent.  The light-cigarette consumer fraud litigation still suffers from constitutional flaws relating to due process in aggregate litigation, but these remain to be resolved.

Filed under: , , , , ,

April 16 roundup

  • Schadenfreude overload: Eliot Spitzer fighting with Bill Lerach’s old law firm. You see, Spitzer returned Lerach firm’s money after the indictment (unlike many other Democrats); when Lerach left the firm, Spitzer hit them up for cash again; now, they’re the ones seeking money. [WSJ Law Blog; NY Sun]
  • Breakthrough on Keisler nomination. [Levey]
  • Sued for accurately saying government employee was a Mexican. [Volokh]
  • Global warming lawsuit finds conspiracy in free speech. [Pero]
  • Yet another free speech lawsuit: 50-Cent sued for “promoting gangsta lifestyle.” [Torts Prof]
  • 3-2 decision in NY Appellate Division: Not a design defect for tobacco companies to sell cigarettes that aren’t light cigarettes. [Rose v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co.; NYLJ/law.com via Prince]
  • Meanwhile, tobacco companies are also being sued over light cigarettes. Second Circuit tosses Judge Weinstein’s novel class certification (Point of Law); Supreme Court grants cert in Altria Group v. Good.
  • Defensive medicine one of many reasons that health-care costs so much in US [New York Times]
  • Eyewitness testimony: you can’t always believe your eyes. [Chapman]
  • First-hand report on Obama’s views on guns. [Lott]
  • Ethical problem for law firm to be representing judges in litigation seeking pay raise? [Turkewitz]

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , ,

Seatbelts = light cigarettes?

Via Martin Grace, Craig Newmark tag teams with David Kopel on the Price v. Philip Morris case:

The plaintiff’s theory–agreed to, mind you, by the trial court–was that

. . . the marketing of “light” cigarettes was a form of consumer fraud. Because the cigarettes have less tar, some smokers compensated for the lower quantity of tar in an individual cigarette by inhaling deeper, or smoking larger quantities. Thus, according to the trial court, Philip Morris deceived smokers into thinking the cigarettes were safer.

How strange, except that if the theory were widely accepted the plaintiff’s bar would have more work than they could handle until the end of the world. Economists have good evidence that seatbelts change drivers’ behavior a little for the worse. So should any devices–padded dashes, anti-lock brakes, airbags–that make drivers safer. “Child-proof” caps on medicines also seem to have made people less careful in storing drugs. And Kopel notes that the theory seems tailor-made to sue makers of low-calorie foods. If this theory of harm were accepted, all those companies and more–many more–would, I assume, be liable.

Kopel concludes:

That the tobacco companies were sued for manufacturing and advertising a safer product is a good example of the perversity of modern tort law, and of the determination of anti-tobacco extremists to punish cigarette companies even when cigarette companies took affirmitive steps to reduce the dangers of smoking.

“Perversity,” indeed.

Previous commentary at Point of Law and links therein.

Filed under: ,