Christina Spicer  |  May 1, 2014

Category: Consumer News

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Marlboro Lights class action lawsuitThe Fifth District Court of Appeals in Illinois ruled Tuesday to overturn a lower court’s decision and reinstate a $10 billion class action settlement against Philip Morris USA Inc. over allegations it deceptively marketed its Marlboro Lights cigarettes as safer than regular ones.

The Philip Morris class action settlement is part of long-running litigation against the cigarette maker that was spearheaded by plaintiffs Sharon Price and Michael Fruth. They allege in the Philip Morris class action lawsuit that the company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by advertising its Marlboro Lights cigarettes as “light” or “low tar.” The plaintiffs purported to represent all Illinois residents since 1971 who purchased Philip Morris’s light or low tar cigarettes under the impression they were healthier.

On March 21, 2003, the court entered a $10.1 billion class action settlement in favor of the plaintiffs; however, in 2005, the Supreme Court of Illinois reversed that judgment, finding that the Consumer Fraud Act barred the plaintiffs’ action because, the court said, Philip Morris’s actions were specifically authorized by the Federal Trade Commission through a process of “informal regulatory activity,” including the use of consent decrees. The Supreme Court of Illinois remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the Philip Morris cigarette class action lawsuit.

At this point, the plaintiffs filed a petition to reverse the Supreme Court of Illinois decision, alleging that evidence unavailable to the plaintiffs at trial showed that the FTC never authorized use of the terms “light” and “low tar,” and had the plaintiffs been able to present this evidence, the result would have been different.

The trial court found that the plaintiffs had a meritorious claim, and acted with due diligence both in attempting to present that claim at trial and in filing their petition; however, the court also determined that it was “equally likely” that the supreme court would have reversed on other grounds had it ruled differently. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s, arguing that the trial court exceeded the scope of its review but ruled correctly on all other issues.

The three judge panel of the Court of Appeals in Illinois agreed with the plaintiffs and reversed the trial court’s ruling. In their April 29 decision, the judges pointed out “[i]t is important to note that there is a key distinction … between the question actually decided by the supreme court and those left unresolved.”

“The question of the applicability of the section 10b(1) was decided by the supreme court in a lengthy opinion in which the court provided a detailed rationale for that decision,” said the court. “Therefore, we know the basis of its decision on that question.”

“In contrast,” stated the court, “the supreme court did not analyze, much less resolve, the question of whether the plaintiffs offered sufficient proof of the damages they alleged.”

“The trial court’s discussion of what the supreme court would have decided had it addressed those issues is inherently speculative in a way its discussion of the impact of the new information on the issue it actually did decide is not,” concluded the appellate court.

The appellate court’s decision to reinstate the Philip Morris cigarette class action settlement is huge news for plaintiffs involved in similar class action lawsuits against the company. Philip Morris has been fighting multiple cigarette false advertising class action lawsuits filed across the country.

In March, an Ohio judge denied certification to a Marlboro Lights class action lawsuit accusing Philip Morris of deceptively marketing the cigarettes as healthier than regular cigarettes. A similar Marlboro Lights class action lawsuit was denied certification in January by a Hawaii federal judge. Other cigarette class action lawsuits have been filed in Arkansas, Missouri, and Minnesota.

Plaintiffs in the Price v. Philip Morris class action lawsuit are represented by Stephen M. Tillery, Robert L. King, George A. Zelcs, Maximilian C. Gibbons and Matthew C. Davies of Korein Tillery LLC, Joseph A. Power Jr. of Power Rogers & Smith PC and Nina Hunter Fields and Michael J. Brickman of Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman LLC.

The Philip Morris Light Cigarettes Class Action Lawsuit is Sharon Price, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., Case No. 5-13-0017, in the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

UPDATE: On Mar. 25, 2016, Philip Morris urged the U.S. Supreme Court not to review a nixed $10 billion trial court judgment over allegations its light and low-tar cigarettes are deceptively marketed.

UPDATE 2: On June 20, 2016, The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition to review the $10 billion verdict, which was thrown out by the Illinois Supreme Court.  Therefore, the verdict remains voided.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.


158 thoughts on$10 Billion Philip Morris Cigarette Class Action Settlement Reinstated

  1. darrell d hancock jr says:

    im 69 yrs old been diag with severe copd i had 3 heart attacks a blood clott in my lung and just rwcently a blood clott in my intestines

  2. patricia egan says:

    i am a mother of a grown gentleman who is living with me to help as a senior care giver. all is well except we cannot afford his cigarette habit. as a very young male coveting marlboro products he began smoking, trading, and selling his cigarettes to earn them, especially the expensive jacket/ and more. It now costs me 10.00 dollars a day, 70.00 a week, 280.00 a month! My 2005 ford escape needs to be replaced, 280.00 per month is a car payment i cannot handle. your marketing devices worked! are you happy now? i am not!

  3. robby Flanagan says:

    My dad died Sept 13 th 2001 , he smoked Marlboro lights since the sixty’s, on his death certificate it reads , cause of death nicotine addiction…not cancer not clpd, nicotine addiction… I need to know I my family sued not in a class action lawsuit , after dad died I separated myself from the
    family.

  4. Angelica Romero says:

    Add me

  5. Pamela Fougeron says:

    Can I sue for becoming addicted to smoking. I have tried many different meds to stop but am truly addicted?

  6. Michael Aguilar says:

    My father passed away from lung cancer. I would like to join the class action lawsuit.

  7. Leiontine MYERS says:

    my father passed from lung cancer and I have been trying to quit for the last 10 years to no avail. smoking is affecting my health. needing to quit and being so addicted is painful in so many ways…

    1. Michael J Highfill says:

      My dad smoke 3packs a day for over 40 years n can’t breathe much

  8. Janet Greenhaw says:

    Hello, my husband who is only 46 was just diagnosed with stage 4 mestastic lung cancer. He smoked for many years & the cigs have contributed to his cancer. Cigs kill & they need to plainly say on packaging these could cause cancer.

  9. Beverly Czerwinski says:

    My husband has stage 4 lung cancer caused by smoking i need a lawyer

  10. Lewis Bankhead says:

    My friend wife passed of lung cancer from smoking and would like to join the suit.

    1. Top Class Actions says:

      UPDATE 2: On June 20, 2016, The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition to review the $10 billion verdict, which was thrown out by the Illinois Supreme Court. Therefore, the verdict remains voided. You can contact class counsel with your questions. Counsel is listed at the bottom of the article and can be Googled for contact information.

1 10 11 12

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.