The case involved a Maine lawsuit filed by three smokers against Philip Morris USA and parent company Altria Group that the cigarette firm was engaged in deceptive marketing because it advertised its light cigarette as less harmful than regular ones. Philip Morris said it should be protected for state law claims by federal regulation.
Members of the Supreme Court seem to be divided. The liberal wing appear to be inclined to favor the smokers, while conservative justices led by Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Antonin Scalia suggested it was more the government's fault if consumers were misled into concluding that light cigarettes are safer than regular ones.
Many smokers thought low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes are safer based on tar and nicotine measurement tests made by the Federal Trade Commission, which regulates industries.
The case is among the growing number of lawsuits before the U.S. Supreme Court involving the preemption doctrine which permits product liability cases against companies to be thrown out under federal laws. Another major preemption cases involving the pharmaceutical industry is slated to be heard by the Supreme Court in November.
Commenting on the rise of preemption lawsuits before the Supreme Court, Linda Conti, assistant attorney general for Maine, who filed the case on behalf of 47 states and the District of Columbia, said, quoted by the Washington Post, "We're worried that this is a grand conspiracy by the Supreme Court to prevent states from having any role in enforcing rules against big companies."
Philip Morris lawyer Theodore Olsen insisted the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act bans states from any requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health in advertising. But lawyer David Frederick, who represents the smokers, argued the law did not offer cigarette firms from immunity for false statements.
