Lawyers have found a new way to go after the tobacco industry.
In a class-action trial set to begin Tuesday in Edwardsville, Ill., near St. Louis, plaintiffs’ lawyers will argue that Philip Morris Cos. broke state consumer protection laws by deceiving people about the dangers of its light cigarettes. They are demanding that the world’s largest tobacco company refund billions of dollars to Illinois smokers who bought such cigarettes going back more than 30 years.
The case is the first of its kind nationally to come to trial in that it involves claims of economic loss and not personal injury, which up until now has been the cornerstone of tobacco litigation. For that reason, the trial is being closely watched as a barometer for other class-action claims involving light cigarettes.
Philip Morris faces similar allegations in at least 10 other states. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. and British American Tobacco PLC’s Brown & Williamson also have been sued.
“It’s a novel and clever theory,” said William Schroeder, a law professor at Southern Illinois University. “The question is whether people fully understand what they are getting.”
Philip Morris contends the case does not deserve class-action status, arguing that the allegations are too different to be treated collectively.
“Light means many different things to many different smokers,” said John Mulderig, associate general counsel at the company. “It might mean lighter taste. It might mean lower tar and nicotine.”
Philip Morris first introduced light cigarettes in 1971. These cigarettes have a series of small holes in the filters that dilute tobacco smoke and, as a result, yield lower amounts of tar and nicotine when tested by machines.
But documents in lawsuits brought by smokers and states in the last decade showed that the industry knew smokers covered up ventilation holes with their fingers or lips. Smokers also compensated by taking more frequent puffs or inhaling more deeply, giving them a higher amount of tar and nicotine than estimated in government tests.
Yet by continuing to market these cigarettes as “light,” the tobacco industry deceived consumers, the suit charges. To the average consumer, “light” means “healthy,” said Stephen Tillery, the East St. Louis attorney representing the smokers. “These people legitimately thought they were getting a safer cigarette. They’ve been scammed.”
That is how plaintiff Sharon Price feels. The 52-year-old East Alton resident says she switched to Cambridge Lights nearly 30 years ago because she thought they were safer.
“I thought they would help me cut down and eventually quit,” said Price, who smokes about a pack and a half a day. “I thought I was making a healthier choice.”
Philip Morris says it has not lied, noting that each pack carries a health warning. Starting late last year, the company also began including an additional insert in about 130 million packs of light, medium, mild and ultralight cigarettes saying they are not safer than full-strength brands.
The additional warning was in response to a National Cancer Institute report in November 2001 that said low-tar or light cigarettes did not reduce the chances of getting smoking-related diseases.
Despite these measures, Philip Morris lost a light-cigarette case last year in which the family of a deceased smoker who used the low-tar products sued for wrongful death. An Oregon jury ordered the company to pay damages of $150 million, later reduced by a judge to $100 million.
Aside from precedent, Philip Morris faces an uphill battle in a Madison County court that is notorious for being friendly to plaintiffs seeking damages from big business.
The lawsuit’s original plaintiff was Susan Miles of Granite City, Ill., who in 2000 sued Philip Morris, claiming she was misled about the health risks of smoking low-tar, low-nicotine cigarettes.
The company cannot challenge the class certification until the trial is completed, under the guidelines of the court.
