Legal News

High Court to Smokers: Preemption, Shmeemption; Bring Your State Suits

By Ashby Jones

Proponents of the legal theory known as “federal preemption” were thwarted today by a Supreme Court ruling which allowed a lawsuit, filed in state court in Maine, to proceed. Here’s a copy of the 5-4 ruling, authored by Justice John Paul Stevens; click here for the WSJ story.

Longtime readers of the Law Blog will recall that the theory of preemption, for reasons that were never clear to his editors, was an obsession of Peter Lattman, the former Law Blogger. In a nutshell, preemption concerns whether federal regulation immunizes certain products from state lawsuits; for instance, whether a drug company’s compliance with certain FDA safety regulations would insulate it from state suits, alleging harm under tort law.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that a group of Maine consumers can continue with its suit against Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris unit under state unfair-trade laws even though cigarette labeling is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. The Maine consumers allege that Philip Morris’s ads involving light and low-tar cigarettes were deceptive.

Monday’s ruling affirms a decision of the federal appeals court in Boston, which had sided with consumers. The smokers allege that Philip Morris used the “light” description of Marlboro Lights and other cigarettes to suggest that those brands were less harmful than regular versions, even though it knew that smokers would receive the same levels of tar and nicotine from both.

Philip Morris argued that federal regulation of tobacco advertising should bar consumer product liability lawsuits against the company in state courts. It also noted that the FTC repeatedly endorsed tobacco-company use of “light” and “low-tar” descriptions.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on December 15, 2008 (boomark / email).