Altria Group, Inc. v. Good
2008 U.S. LEXIS 9127, 172 L. Ed. 2d 398, 555 U.S. 70 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State-law fraud claims against cigarette manufacturers for deceptively advertising 'light' cigarettes are not pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act because such claims are predicated on a general duty not to deceive, rather than on a specific requirement or prohibition 'based on smoking and health.'
Facts:
- Philip Morris USA, Inc., and its parent company, Altria Group, Inc., manufactured and sold cigarettes marketed with descriptors such as 'light' and 'Lowered Tar and Nicotine.'
- A group of Maine residents were longtime smokers of Philip Morris's 'Marlboro Lights' and 'Cambridge Lights' cigarettes.
- The smokers believed these descriptors meant the cigarettes delivered less tar and nicotine and were therefore less harmful than regular cigarettes.
- Philip Morris was aware that smokers of 'light' cigarettes often engage in 'compensatory behaviors,' such as covering ventilation holes, taking larger puffs, or inhaling more deeply.
- These compensatory behaviors cause smokers to inhale as much tar and nicotine as they would from regular cigarettes, negating any potential health benefit.
- The smokers alleged that Philip Morris knew this information and fraudulently concealed it while continuing to market the cigarettes as a healthier option.
Procedural Posture:
- Maine residents (respondents) filed a class-action lawsuit against Philip Morris and Altria (petitioners) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.
- The complaint alleged violations of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA).
- Petitioners moved for summary judgment, arguing the state-law claim was pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
- The District Court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of petitioners, finding the claim was pre-empted.
- Respondents appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed the District Court's judgment, holding that the fraud claim was not pre-empted.
- The U.S. Supreme Court (highest court) granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act pre-empt a state-law claim that cigarette manufacturers violated a state's unfair trade practices act by fraudulently advertising their 'light' cigarettes as delivering less tar and nicotine?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act does not pre-empt the state-law fraud claim. This claim is predicated on a duty not to deceive, which is a general obligation under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act that is not 'based on smoking and health.' Following the framework established in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., the Court distinguishes between claims based on a general duty (not pre-empted) and claims based on a specific state-imposed duty relating to smoking and health (pre-empted). Because the duty not to deceive applies to all industries and is not specific to cigarettes, a claim for its breach falls outside the scope of the Act's pre-emption clause. Furthermore, the claim is not impliedly pre-empted, as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) never had a policy authorizing the use of 'light' descriptors to make misleading health claims.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
Yes. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act pre-empts the state-law fraud claim. The plurality's 'predicate duty' test from Cipollone is unworkable and should be replaced with Justice Scalia's more textually sound test, which asks whether a claim 'imposes an obligation... because of the effect of smoking upon health.' Under that standard, this claim is pre-empted because the alleged fraud is entirely about the health effects of smoking 'light' cigarettes. A verdict for the smokers would create a state-law 'requirement or prohibition' regarding cigarette advertising based on smoking and health, which is precisely what Congress intended to prevent in order to ensure uniform federal regulation.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and solidifies the fractured 'predicate duty' framework from Cipollone, establishing it as the governing standard for pre-emption under the Labeling Act. By narrowly interpreting the phrase 'based on smoking and health,' the Court preserves a significant avenue for state-level consumer fraud litigation against tobacco companies. This ruling ensures that while states cannot impose their own specific warning requirements, they can use general consumer protection laws to police deceptive advertising, potentially leading to varied legal outcomes across different states and undermining the national uniformity Congress sought to achieve.
Unlock the full brief for Altria Group, Inc. v. Good