ADVERTISEMENT



Google       
Call (866) 635-2689 for a free Personal Injury evaluation by attorney in your area.

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> InjuryBoard

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Personal Injury Law

: InjuryBoard

Big Tobacco Fights Disclosure of Low-Tar Dangers

By Jane Akre

ADVERTISEMENTS

Big Tobacco wants the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit a ban on using the words "light" and "low tar" to advertise cigarettes.

LEARN MORE

IMAGE SOURCE: Wikimedia Commons/ Marlboro cigarettes/ author: bachmont

U.S. Supreme Court Appeal

Major cigarette makers plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider a May ruling that banned using words such a 'light' and 'low-tar' to sell cigarettes, and required them to disclose the dangers of smoking.

Altria Group Inc., Reynolds American Inc., and other makers want a federal court in Washington to delay implementing a May 22 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington which upheld a 2006 ruling which found the companies were guilty of violating federal racketeering laws by conspiring to lie about the dangers of smoking and were likely to do so in the future unless the court intervened.

The appeals court also wants the tobacco companies to publish statements that correct previous misstatements about addiction, smoking dangers, second-hand smoke dangers, and the dangers of 'light' and 'low-tar' cigarettes.

Omitting the descriptors would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and would 'fundamentally alter the business landscape,' the cigarette makers argued.

This is the second time Big Tobacco has made that request to delay implementing the lower court ruling. On September 22, the appeals court denied the request, reports Reuters.

Corporate Free Speech?

The major tobacco companies say the high court should consider open issues – The First Amendment free speech rights they enjoy; whether they should have been charged with racketeering; and whether the FDA's takeover that now regulates tobacco deprives the court of jurisdiction.

The companies appealing to the high court include Altria Group Inc and its Philip Morris USA unit, British American Tobacco Plc, Lorillard Inc, and Reynolds American Inc and RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.

The Clinton Administration originally filed the case a decade ago.

It was seeking nearly $300 billion in damages. Ontario, Canada has sued to recover about $46 billion in damages to taxpayers' health and the associated costs over the last 50 years. #

Originally posted at Jane Akre

Full post as published by InjuryBoard on September 30, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.002 secs (from cache 11/02/26 21:58:47)