No, the federal law does not block California's lawsuit. The lawsuit isn't about the health risks of smoking, which the federal law covers. Instead, this lawsuit is about Reynolds encouraging kids to break a state law (the law against selling cigarettes to minors). States have a general power to stop businesses from promoting illegal activities. The federal law on cigarette ads was never meant to take that power away from the states.

No, federal law doesn't stop this lawsuit. The big federal law about cigarette ads doesn't stop states from making rules about ads that try to get kids to smoke. This lawsuit is about unfair business practices and advertising something illegal, not about smoking and health. It's like how we have rules against lying in ads - those rules are okay even with the federal cigarette ad law. The state isn't trying to make new rules about what warnings cigarette ads need. They're just saying you can't make ads that try to get kids to do something illegal. Congress, the people who make federal laws, didn't mean to stop states from protecting kids from ads that try to get them to break the law. So, California can go ahead with this lawsuit to try to stop ads that target kids.

I agree with the court’s decision because I think it’s really important to protect kids from ads that try to get them to smoke. My view is a little different from the main opinion because I focus on the long history of laws that keep kids safe. In simple words, even though there’s a federal law about cigarette ads, states still have the right to make extra rules to stop ads that target minors.

No. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act does not preempt a state law claim that an advertising campaign illegally targets minors. Following the analysis in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., the central inquiry is whether the legal duty underlying the claim is a 'requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health.' The predicate duty in this case is the general obligation not to engage in unfair competition by advertising illegal conduct or encouraging others to violate the law—specifically, the prohibition on selling cigarettes to minors. This duty is not 'based on smoking and health' but rather on the state's traditional police power to regulate illegal transactions. This is analogous to the holding in Cipollone that fraudulent misrepresentation claims were not preempted because they were based on the general duty not to deceive. Furthermore, the legislative history of the federal act explicitly states it was not intended to affect a state's power regarding the sale of cigarettes to minors or similar police regulations.

No, the action is not preempted by federal law. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., does not preempt state law claims that seek to regulate cigarette advertising targeting minors. The cause of action is based on state law duties not to engage in unfair competition or to advertise illegal conduct, which are not related to smoking and health but rather to preventing deceptive practices. The predicate duty is to not engage in unfair competition by advertising illegal conduct or encouraging others to violate the law. This duty is not 'based on smoking and health' as that phrase was narrowly construed in Cipollone. State law prohibitions against advertisements targeting minors do not create diverse, nonuniform, and confusing standards, but rely on a single, uniform standard: do not target minors. Evidence of congressional intent, including statements in Senate reports and more recent legislation, supports the conclusion that Congress did not intend to preempt state efforts to prohibit cigarette advertising directed at minors. Given the presumption against preemption of state police powers, and the lack of clear congressional intent to preempt such actions, we hold that the targeting minors cause of action is not preempted by federal law.

I join the majority in holding that the state’s prohibition against targeting minors in cigarette advertising is not preempted by federal law because the statutory framework permits states to exercise their traditional police power to protect vulnerable populations. In my concurrence, I stress that while the majority correctly reads section 1334(b) narrowly, I diverge by placing greater emphasis on the long historical context and longstanding state interest in safeguarding children. I believe that this protective duty, which has been nurtured for over a century, reinforces the state’s authority to regulate so as to prevent deceptive and harmful practices aimed at minors, thereby complementing rather than conflicting with federal interests.

Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot