» This Story:Read +| Comments

Big Tobacco Loses in Appeals Court

Judges Uphold 2006 Ruling That Firms Lied About Risks

Under the appeals court's decision, cigarette manufacturers will no longer be allowed to label brands "light" or "low tar." Tobacco companies' indication that they will appeal would probably put compliance with the ruling on hold.
Under the appeals court's decision, cigarette manufacturers will no longer be allowed to label brands "light" or "low tar." Tobacco companies' indication that they will appeal would probably put compliance with the ruling on hold. (Chuck Burton - AP)
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 23, 2009

A federal appeals court dealt a blow to cigarette makers yesterday by upholding a landmark 2006 ruling that the companies lied for decades about the dangers of smoking.

This Story

In a 93-page opinion, a three-judge panel cleared the way for new restrictions on how cigarette companies market and sell their products. Under the decision, the manufacturers will no longer be allowed to label brands "light" or "low tar" and will have to purchase ads on television and in major newspapers that explain the health dangers and addictiveness of their products.

Tobacco companies indicated that they will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, a process that would probably put compliance with the ruling on hold for at least several months.

The decision is the latest juncture in a legal odyssey that began when the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton filed a lawsuit in 1999 against nine cigarette makers and two tobacco-related trade groups. The government alleged that the companies and organizations conspired for decades to deceive Americans about the consequences of smoking.

The Justice Department issued a statement late yesterday that called the decision "a victory for the American people."

Chuck D. Connor, president and chief executive of the American Lung Association, said the decision "is almost everything we could have hoped for," adding: "It's a very sweeping and tremendous indictment against the industry."

Philip Morris USA and its parent company, Altria Group, issued a statement saying that the manufacturers "continue to believe that the court's conclusions are not supported by the law or the evidence presented at trial, and we believe the exceptional importance of these issues justifies further review."

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco issued a statement expressing disappointment in the decision. "R.J. Reynolds strongly believes that neither the evidence presented at trial nor the legal standards justify" the findings, said Martin L. Holton III, a senior vice president and the general counsel at the company.

Representatives from other tobacco firms involved in the suit, including British American Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco, did not respond to phone messages seeking comment.

Yesterday's ruling largely upheld a 1,653-page opinion issued by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler that found the companies engaged in a massive civil racketeering scheme that defrauded the public about smoking's hazards.

Kessler found that the companies "marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted."

The judge ordered the companies to stop delivering misleading or deceptive statements about smoking. And she directed them to strip marketing material and cigarette packaging of "low tar," "light," "ultra light," "mild," "natural" or any other term that may lead consumers to think the product is less hazardous than other brands. The industry had known for years, for example, that consumers often smoked more "light" cigarettes to meet their nicotine needs, Kessler found.


CONTINUED     1        >


» This Story:Read +| Comments
© 2009 The Washington Post Company