WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court picked up Monday where it left off last term, signaling support for efforts to block lawsuits against tobacco companies over deceptive marketing of "light" cigarettes.

The first day of the court's new term, which is set in law as the first Monday in October, included denials of hundreds of appeals. Chief Justice John Roberts opened the new session in a crowded courtroom that included retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Last term, the justices handed down several opinions that limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power. Several justices posed skeptical questions in this term's first case, whether federal law prevents smokers from using consumer protection laws to go after tobacco companies for their marketing of "light" and "low tar" cigarettes.

The companies are facing dozens of such lawsuits across the country.

The federal cigarette labeling law bars states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health.

"How do you tell it's deceptive or not if you don't look at what the relationship is between smoking and health?," Chief Justice John Roberts said during oral arguments on the case.

Three Maine residents sued Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA Inc. subsidiary under the state's law against unfair marketing practices. The class-action claim represents all smokers of Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights cigarettes, both made by Philip Morris.

The lawsuit argues that the company knew for decades that smokers of light cigarettes compensate for the lower levels of tar and nicotine by taking longer puffs and compensating in other ways.

A federal district court threw out the lawsuit, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it could go forward.

The role of the Federal Trade Commission could be important in the outcome. The FTC is only now proposing to change rules that for years condoned the use of "light" and "low tar" in advertising the cigarettes, despite evidence that smokers were getting a product as dangerous as regular cigarettes.

The FTC "created this problem by tacitly approving the placement of these figures in the advertisements," Justice Samuel Alito said.

Douglas Hallward-Dreimeier, the Justice Department lawyer representing the FTC before the court on Monday, said the cigarette makers "should not be able to benefit from their own misleading of the commission."

Justice Stephen Breyer said tobacco companies are like most national advertisers that have to comply with differing state anti-deception ads. "Yet they've survived. There is no evidence even that there is a problem, " Breyer said.

* The case is Altria Group Inc. v. Good, 07-562.

Comments

(Requires free registration.)

1 comment(s) found!

Posted by: Domaco34 On: 10/7/2008

Comment Title: Greed
Ok, here goes. I am a smoker. If and when I get cancer, or try to run around the yard with my child and can't because I am out of breath, I think I should sue the tobacco company that makes the cigarettes that I CHOSE TO SMOKE. It is there fault that I decided to smoke their brand, So they should pay me. Man, that sounds almost as smart as starting this stupid habit in the first place. The gov. is letting this happen?? STOP. If you are a smoker, you know the risks. It has been publicized enough. It is like getting hammered on beer, going out and wrecking your car, then trying to maker the beer company pay for that car. STUPID. If you are a smoker, then you are putting yourself at risk. Look at what the gov. will help you with if you are severly injured on a motorcycle without a helmet. Nothing!! Why, because it is stupid to do and common sense would tell you that. Smoking is stupid to do, smoke at your own risk. All of you sue happy people are a big reason prices on everything are so high. Insurance is so high. Stupid people.

---