Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Man robbed at Tallmadge Avenue eatery
Another winter punch heading toward Ohio
Four teens restrain man, take items from his Akron home
Complaints against officer keep coming
Police: Ohio girl dies after fall into snow bank
Region makes way for latest batch of snow; cancellations rise
Cuyahoga Falls residents come home to find burning couch on balcony
Blogs:
First Bell - On Education:
Pets:
Pet telethon re-airs
The Heldenfiles:
Chipmunks "Squeakquel" on DVD/BD March 30
Akron Zips:
Late surge gives Zips ugly road win
Tribe Matters:
Blogmail response on Hafner
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth's contract terminated
Balanced Ledger:
Kent State Sports:
KSU Notes – February 9
Cleveland Cavaliers:
NBA Power Rankings from Around the Internet
Buckeye Blogging:
Varsity Letters:
Garfield at Buchtel basketball
All Da King's Men:
Palin At The Tea Party Convention
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Akron Law Café:
Citizens United v. F.E.C. (Part 4): Kennedy's and O'Connor's Basic Approaches to Constitutional Decisionmaking – Top Down and Bottom Up
Car Chase:
Collector Car Hobby Loses One of the Best—Jim Roll
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Decisions Decisions: Credit Cards or Your Mortgage?
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Loucile is looking for a Lake Erie getaway in June for three kids, ages 1, 3, and 5.
Sound Check:
Talk of the Town – Top entertainment picks for the weekend
HRLite House:
Track HR Research
Akron Gamer:
Makers of 'Castle Crashers' unveil 'BattleBlock Theater'
See Jane Style:
Do IT this week: Layering
The Supreme Court blows Big Tobacco's cover
Published on Wednesday, Dec 17, 2008
The majority opinion assures consumers recourse to sue for the damaging effects of false and inaccurate statements. To restrict litigation in state courts, companies increasingly are arguing that federal regulation of their products (say, cigarettes, a prescription drug or a pacemaker) pre-empted consumer action to hold them liable for injury under state laws. In several recent cases, the high court has favored the corporate argument. Not this time.
The Altria Group, the parent company of cigarette-maker Philip Morris, deployed the pre-emption argument when smokers in Maine sued, citing the state's unfair business practices law. The smokers alleged the cigarette-maker falsely advertised the benefits of ''light'' cigarettes (lower tar, lower nicotine). They contended the company knew but ignored the fact that light-cigarette smokers compensated, covering the filter holes, inhaling deeper or holding the smoke longer in their lungs — releasing similar amounts of tar and nicotine as regular cigarettes.
The justices did not decide whether or not the smokers' allegations of false advertising were justified. They returned the case to Maine to sort out that question. The ruling this week instead rightly tossed out the claim that the federal warning label on cigarettes somehow disqualifies anyone from applying state laws pertaining to deceptive advertising and marketing practices.
If the tobacco and other companies are taken aback, they have reason to be. The ruling denies them the automatic protective cover they seek. It establishes the fair requirement that the companies defend their practices where they do business.
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
