Search

Introduction The evidence linking tobacco product advertising to adolescent smoking initiation and resulting long-term addiction, premature death, and disability is well established. Each link in the causal chain has been [...], Recent amendments to federal law and a burgeoning body of research have intensified public health officials' interest in reducing youth initiation of tobacco use, including by regulating the time, place, or manner of tobacco product advertising at the point of sale. This article analyzes legal obstacles to various strategies for reducing youth initiation.

The development of a broad federal statutory scheme for regulating medical devices has limited state tort claims but has also provided manufacturers with certainty and uniformity among states. The Medical Device Amendments identify the scope of the US Food and Drug Administration's authority to regulate sophisticated medical devices. The comprehensiveness of the statutes has lead to broad preemption. These products require the courts to perform careful balancing because many users are facing serious health situations.

Liability litigation for injury claims from environmental tobacco smoke, and the issue of the tobacco industry's duty to warn of health threats, should be based on a public law approach. This would solve the problems of the indeterminate plaintiff and indeterminate defendant by calculating damages based on attributable risk and market share. Preemption of failure to warn claims was found in Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc, but this should be overcome by proof of causation.

The US Supreme Court found that the express legislative intent of the 1969 amendments to the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act was to preempt state tort claims such as those brought in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. A plurality of the Court ruled that the plaintiff's claims for failure to warn, fraudulent misrepresentation and others were subject to the preemption defense because Congress had intended the federal statute to provide exclusive remedies. This decision, in conflict with prior case law, will have the effect of limiting tobacco industry liability.

The US Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, holding that the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts all state tort claims against tobacco manufacturers, demonstrates different judicial views on preemption. The majority of the Court, seizing on statutory language prohibiting state labeling or advertising restrictions inconsistent with the Act, reasoned that Congress intended to preempt state tort claims because preemption of other claims is not expressly mentioned. A minority of the Court construed the provision broadly, seeing any mention of preemption as statutory intent to prohibit all state tort claims.

The Supreme Court launched its October 2008 term with oral arguments in Altria v. Good, reviewing whether the federal cigarette labeling act should preempt a case arguing that a tobacco [...]

The First Circuit recently allowed a case brought by "lights" smokers against cigarette manufacturers to move forward, reversing a district court's decision. The lower court had granted the defendants' motion [...]

A Florida class action against tobacco manufacturers took a blow in May, but an individual suit in Arkansas was rewarded at trial, and the federal government had a big win, [...]

The main reason for the nearly perfect litigation record of the tobacco industry is its ability to convince the courts the the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, calls for a broad application of federal preemption. The tobacco industry has been able to persuade the courts that federal preemption provides the industry broad protection from common law causes of action. However, a proper understanding of federal preemption law reveals that the industry overstates its protection and the courts misunderstand it.

Byline: THOMAS PARDEE AND BRADLEY JOHNSON We took a look in the Ad Age archives to give you the biggest news on Mad Ave back in the day TOBACCO WARNINGS [...]

NEW YORK--A federal district court last week threw out New York City's ban on outdoor tobacco ads, ruling that the restrictions violate a federal law preventing states from limiting cigarette [...]

The ad industry's hopes of turning a challenge of Massachusetts tobacco marketing curbs into a major First Amendment case may have gone up in smoke. Last week's Supreme Court oral […]

The Media Violence Labeling Act of 2000 (S.2497), a recent Senate proposal, could have a far-reaching impact on consumers and retailers if enacted. Introduced last month by Sens. John McCain [...]

Rating media violence is just politics as usual Remember the magic bullet theory? Social scientists claimed media content had a direct and measurable impact on individuals, much like the injection [...]

Tobacco companies are at the center of the news these days, with the topic being their potential liability for injury to the health of smokers. But aside from this controversial [...]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--An appeals court ruled last week that New York City's ban on outdoor tobacco ads does not violate a federal law preventing states from restricting cigarette ads. The U.S. [...]