United States v. Philip Morris

Last updated

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. [1] was a case in which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held several major tobacco companies liable for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act [2] by engaging in numerous acts of fraud to further a conspiracy to deceive the American public about nicotine addiction and the health effects of cigarettes and environmental tobacco smoke.

Contents

Judge Gladys Kessler found that the evidence overwhelmingly established that the companies violated RICO by coordinating their public relations, research, and marketing efforts in order to advance their scheme to defraud by denying the adverse health effects of smoking, denying the addictiveness of nicotine, denying their manipulation of the nicotine content of cigarettes, and denying that their marketing targeted youth as new smokers. The companies also suppressed and destroyed information related to the dangers of smoking in order to maximize their profits and enhance the market for cigarettes.

Trial

Complaint

On September 22, 1999, the United States Department of Justice brought a lawsuit against nine cigarette manufacturers and two tobacco industry trade associations [3] in the United States District Court of the District of Columbia ("District Court"). The complaint alleged that the tobacco companies had engaged in an approximately fifty-year conspiracy to fraudulently deceive the American public about the health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke, the addictiveness of nicotine, the health benefits from low tar, "light" cigarettes, and their manipulation of the design and composition of cigarettes in order to sustain nicotine addiction. According to the complaint, the tobacco companies deliberately sought to deny that smoking caused disease and to maintain that there was no scientific consensus on the subject. In furtherance of this strategy, Defendants allegedly issued deceptive press releases, published false and misleading articles, destroyed and concealed documents which indicated that there was in fact a correlation between smoking and disease, and aggressively targeted children as potential new smokers.

The lawsuit sought to recover health care expenditures the government had paid and would have to pay to treat tobacco-related illnesses as a result of the tobacco companies' unlawful action under three federal statutes: the Medical Care Recovery Act ("MCRA), [4] the Medicare Secondary Payer ("MSP") provisions, [5] and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). [6] Additionally, the government requested injunctive relief under the RICO Act to prevent the tobacco companies from engaging in further fraud and to disgorge the companies' ill-gotten proceeds from their illegal activity.

Proceedings

Defendants moved to dismiss the case on all counts, and in September 2000, the District Court granted their motion in part, dismissing the MCRA and MSP claims and preventing the government from recovering tobacco-related health care expenditures. However, the court allowed the case to proceed on the RICO claims. Under RICO, the Government sought injunctive relief and $289 billion in disgorgement of defendants' ill-gotten gains from the alleged conspiracy. Defendants appealed the requested relief to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("DC Circuit"). On interlocutory appeal, the DC Circuit determined that disgorgement is not a permissible remedy in civil RICO cases because injunctive relief must be "forward looking" to prevent and restrain future violations. [7]

The Government continued to seek monetary damages to fund smoking cessation and prevention programs, and in 2005, the Department of Justice amended its requested relief for these programs from $130 billion over 25 years to $14 billion over ten years. At this time, several public health groups joined the lawsuit as intervenors for the purpose of asserting their interests in the proposed relief. [8]

Opinion of the court

On August 17, 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler issued a landmark 1,683-page opinion holding the tobacco companies liable for conspiracy and violations of RICO by fraudulently covering up the health risks associated with cigarettes and for marketing their products to children. [9] [10] Kessler wrote that the tobacco companies "have 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."

Because the DC Circuit held that RICO permits only forward-looking remedies to prevent and restrain future violations, Judge Kessler ruled that the tobacco companies could not be made to fund the smoking cessation and awareness programs. The ruling ordered the following injunctive relief:

Prohibition of Brand Descriptors

The court found that the only way to restrain defendants from their longstanding and continuing fraudulent efforts to deceive smokers, potential smokers, and the American public about "light" and "low tar" cigarettes was to prohibit them from using any descriptor which conveys a health message. Accordingly, Judge Kessler enjoined defendants from using any descriptors indicating lower tar delivery—including, but not limited to, "low tar," "light," "mild," "medium" and "ultra-light"—which create the false impression that such cigarettes are less harmful to smokers.

Corrective Communications

The trial record established that defendants had made false, deceptive, and misleading public statements about cigarettes, and the court found that an injunction ordering them to issue corrective statements is appropriate and necessary to prevent and restrain them from making fraudulent public statements on smoking and health matters in the future.

Judge Kessler ordered defendants to make corrective statements about: (1) addiction, (2) the adverse health effects of smoking), (3) the adverse health effects of exposure to second-hand smoke, (4) the manipulation of the cigarettes to enhance nicotine delivery, and (5) the health benefits of "light" and "low tar" cigarettes. Defendants were required to publish these statements in newspapers and disseminate them through television, advertisements, onsets, in retail displays, and on their corporate websites.

Disclosure of Documents and Disaggregated Marketing Data

The court determined that defendants' suppression and concealment of information was integral to their efforts to defraud the American public, and that defendants had failed to disclose, and created false controversy over the existence of, information they possessed about cigarettes.

Judge Kessler ordered that the tobacco companies must create and maintain document depositories and websites which provide the government and the public with access to all industry documents disclosed in the litigation. Additionally, defendants must provide their disaggregated marketing data to the government to ensure transparency of their marketing efforts, particularly those directed towards youth.

Outcome

All parties appealed Judge Kessler's 2006 decision to the DC Circuit. In 2009, a three-judge panel unanimously upheld Judge Kessler's finding of liability and upheld most of the ordered remedies. [11] A subsequent appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court. [12]

Corrective Statements

Judge Kessler ordered the tobacco companies to make corrective statements on five topics about which they had historically deceived and misled the public. The specific language of these statements was not included in the 2006 ruling, but the parties were to submit proposals for approval by the court. The tobacco companies appealed to the DC Circuit, challenging the corrective-disclosure remedy under both RICO and the First Amendment.

The DC Circuit upheld the corrective statements as a valid remedy in 2009, finding that requiring defendants to reveal the previously hidden truth about their products will prevent and restrain them from disseminating false and misleading statements, thereby violating RICO, in the future. However, the statements must be confined to purely factual and uncontroversial information, intended to thwart efforts to either directly mislead consumers or capitalize on prior deceptions by continuing to advertise in a manner that builds on consumers' existing misperceptions. The DC Circuit also vacated a requirement that the statements be published on retail displays, instructing the District Court to consider the third-party implications of this remedy on remand.

In 2012, Judge Kessler released specific language for the five corrective statements based on proposals submitted by all parties after the 2009 DC Circuit ruling. The tobacco companies were ordered to make the corrective statements through television and newspaper advertising, on their websites, and on cigarette packaging. In a series of subsequent appeals, defendants challenged the language proposed by the court, claiming that portions of the selected text violated their First Amendment rights and were intended to humiliate them and disclose prior wrongdoing rather than prevent and restrain future RICO violations. [13] [14] These appeals resulted in modifications to the language of proposed statements.

In 2022, the court ordered the tobacco companies to post the corrective statements in retail stores for 21 months starting July 2023. [15]

See also

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tobacco industry</span> Persons and companies that produce tobacco-related products

The tobacco industry comprises those persons and companies who are engaged in the growth, preparation for sale, shipment, advertisement, and distribution of tobacco and tobacco-related products. It is a global industry; tobacco can grow in any warm, moist environment, which means it can be farmed on all continents except Antarctica.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Altria</span> American tobacco corporation

Altria Group, Inc. is an American corporation and one of the world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes, and related products. It operates worldwide and is headquartered in Henrico County, Virginia, just outside the city of Richmond.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Passive smoking</span> Inhalation of tobacco smoke by persons other than the intended active smoker

Passive smoking is the inhalation of tobacco smoke, commonly called secondhand smoke (SHS) or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), by individuals other than the active smoker. It occurs when tobacco smoke diffuses into the surrounding atmosphere as an aerosol pollutant, which leads to its inhalation by nearby bystanders within the same environment. Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes many of the same diseases caused by active tobacco smoking, although to a lower prevalence due to the reduced concentration of smoke that enters the airway. The health risks of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus, and have been a major motivation for anti-smoking laws in workplaces and indoor venues, including smoke-free restaurants, bars and night clubs, as well as some open public spaces.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kretek</span> Type of Indonesian cigarette including cloves

Kretek are unfiltered cigarettes of Indonesian origin, made with a blend of tobacco, cloves, and other flavors. The word "kretek" itself is an onomatopoetic term for the crackling sound of burning cloves.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nicotine marketing</span> Marketing technique

Nicotine marketing is the marketing of nicotine-containing products or use. Traditionally, the tobacco industry markets cigarette smoking, but it is increasingly marketing other products, such as electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products. Products are marketed through social media, stealth marketing, mass media, and sponsorship. Expenditures on nicotine marketing are in the tens of billions a year; in the US alone, spending was over US$1 million per hour in 2016; in 2003, per-capita marketing spending was $290 per adult smoker, or $45 per inhabitant. Nicotine marketing is increasingly regulated; some forms of nicotine advertising are banned in many countries. The World Health Organization recommends a complete tobacco advertising ban.

Operation Berkshire is the name of a program initiated in 1976 by seven of the world's major tobacco companies aimed at promoting "controversy" over smoking and disease.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Menthol cigarette</span> Cigarette flavored with the compound menthol

A menthol cigarette is a cigarette infused with the compound menthol which imparts a “minty” flavor to the smoke. Menthol also decreases irritant sensations from nicotine by desensitizing receptors, making smoking feel less harsh compared to regular cigarettes. Some studies have suggested that they are more addictive. Menthol cigarettes are just as hard to quit and are just as harmful as regular cigarettes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ventilated cigarette</span> Cigarette that delivers a lower concentration of chemicals than regular cigarettes

Ventilated cigarettes are considered to have a milder flavor than regular cigarettes. These cigarette brands may be listed as having lower levels of tar ("low-tar"), nicotine, or other chemicals as "inhaled" by a "smoking machine". However, the scientific evidence is that switching from regular to light or low-tar cigarettes does not reduce the health risks of smoking or lower the smoker's exposure to the nicotine, tar, and carcinogens present in cigarette smoke.

<i>Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.</i> 1992 United States Supreme Court case

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case. In a split opinion, the Court held that the Surgeon General's warning did not preclude lawsuits by smokers against tobacco companies on the basis of several claims. The case examined whether tobacco companies could be liable for not warning the consumer "adequately" of the dangers of cigarettes as well as ultimately held the stance that smoking was in fact a free choice. The ruling also questioned the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 to determine whether the warning labels on the cigarette products by law had to be less or more alarming than the warning issued.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tobacco politics</span> Politics surrounding the use and distribution of tobacco

Tobacco politics refers to the politics surrounding the use and distribution of tobacco.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act</span>

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, is a federal statute in the United States that was signed into law by President Barack Obama on June 22, 2009. The Act gives the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate the tobacco industry. A signature element of the law imposes new warnings and labels on tobacco packaging and their advertisements, with the goal of discouraging minors and young adults from smoking. The Act also bans flavored cigarettes, places limits on the advertising of tobacco products to minors and requires tobacco companies to seek FDA approval for new tobacco products.

Howard Aaron Engle was an American pediatrician and lifelong smoker who was one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed against the tobacco industry, in which Engle claimed that he smoked multiple packs of cigarettes daily since he was in college and was unable to quit despite multiple attempts even after contracting emphysema, continuing to smoke until his death.

The majority of lifelong smokers begin smoking habits before the age of 24, which makes the college years a critical time for tobacco companies to convince college students to pick up the habit of cigarette smoking. Cigarette smoking in college is seen as a social activity by those who partake in it, and more than half of the students that are users do not consider themselves smokers. This may be because most college students plan to quit smoking by the time that they graduate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regulation of tobacco by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration</span>

Regulation of tobacco by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration began in 2009 with the passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act by the United States Congress. With this statute, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was given the ability to regulate tobacco products.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cigarette smoking for weight loss</span> Weight control method

Cigarette smoking for weight loss is a weight control method whereby one consumes tobacco, often in the form of cigarettes, to decrease one's appetite. The practice dates to early knowledge of nicotine as an appetite suppressant.

Tobacco marketing targeting African-Americans refers to the practice of customizing tobacco products and advertising techniques specifically to African-American consumers. It is most commonly analyzed through the consumption of mentholated cigarettes, as it represents 47% of black adult smokers and 84% of adolescent black smokers.

Naugle v. Philip Morris was a landmark 2009 court case in which a jury awarded the plaintiff Lucinda Naugle $300 million. The award included $56.6 million in compensatory damages for medical expenses and $244 million in punitive damages. At the time, the verdict was the largest award given to an individual suing a tobacco company, and was featured on NBC, ABC, 60 Minutes, and The New York Times. In 2012, the verdict amount for punitive damages was reduced to $36.8 million.

A modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) is a legal designation in the United States for a tobacco product that poses lower health risks to individual users and the population as a whole when compared to existing products on the market such as cigarettes. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 gives the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) broad authority to regulate tobacco products; the FDA's power extends to approving or rejecting MRTP applications.

The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Truth Tobacco Industry Documents is a digital archive of tobacco industry documents, funded by Truth Initiative and created and maintained by the University of California, San Francisco. The Library is a part of the larger UCSF Industry Documents Library which also includes the Drug Industry Document Archive, the Food Industry Documents Archive and the Chemical Industry Documents Archive. TTID contains over 14 million documents produced by major tobacco companies and organizations, many of them internal strategic memoranda made public as a consequence of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. The documents deal with the tobacco industry's advertising, manufacturing, marketing, sales, and scientific research activities for the last century. Researchers, journalists, students, and activists interested in tobacco control issues and public health policies use the Library extensively to investigate tobacco industry strategies. Research in this archive revealed the tobacco industry playbook and its parallels with techniques linked to climate change denial.

A heated tobacco product (HTP) is a tobacco product that heats the tobacco at a lower temperature than conventional cigarettes. These products contain nicotine, which is a highly addictive chemical. The heat generates an aerosol or smoke to be inhaled from the tobacco, which contains nicotine and other chemicals. HTPs may also contain additives not found in tobacco, including flavoring chemicals. HTPs generally heat tobacco to temperatures under 600 °C (1100 °F), a lower temperature than conventional cigarettes.

References

  1. ↑ United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 9F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006).
  2. ↑ 18 U.S.C.S. § 1961 et seq.
  3. ↑ Civil Action No. 99-2496 (GK). (D.D.C. Sep. 30, 2004) (Naming the eleven defendants as Philip Morris, Inc., now Philip Morris USA, Inc. ("Philip Morris"), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., now Reynolds American ("R.J. Reynolds"), Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., now part of Reynolds American ("Brown & Williamson"), Lorillard Tobacco Company ("Lorillard"), The Liggett Group, Inc. ("Liggett"), American Tobacco Co., merged with Brown & Williamson which is now part of Reynolds American ("American Tobacco"), Philip Morris Cos., now Altria ("Altria"), B.A.T. Industries p.l.c. ("BAT Ind."), now part of BATCo, British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd. ("BATCo"), The Council for Tobacco Research-- U.S.A., Inc. ("CTR"), and The Tobacco Institute, Inc. ("TI")).
  4. ↑ 42 U.S.C. §§ 2651- 2653.
  5. ↑ 42 U.S.C. § 1395y.
  6. ↑ 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968.
  7. ↑ 396 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
  8. ↑ "Timeline in USA v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al". Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Retrieved Aug 13, 2017.
  9. ↑ 9F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006).
  10. ↑ "Judge rules against Big Tobacco". CNN Money. August 18, 2006. Retrieved Aug 13, 2017.
  11. ↑ 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
  12. ↑ Denniston, Kyle (August 7, 2007). "Judge: Tobacco Industry Violated RICO". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved Aug 13, 2017.
  13. ↑ 907 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012).
  14. ↑ 801 F .3d 250, 261-63 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
  15. ↑ "Court Issues Order Requiring Cigarette Companies to Post Corrective Statements; Resolves Historic RICO Tobacco Litigation". Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice. 6 December 2022. Retrieved 4 November 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.