WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to a cigarette maker's request to decide whether tobacco companies can be sued under state law for allegedly deceptive advertising of "light" cigarettes.
The tobacco industry is trying to head off a wave of state-based challenges regarding the light cigarettes, even as it is appealing a federal judge's order to stop marketing cigarettes as "low tar," "light," "ultra light," or "mild" because they mislead consumers.
The issue before the justices is whether state laws against unfair marketing practices may be used in suits against the tobacco companies or whether federal law bars such lawsuits.
The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act says states can't impose any requirements on the advertising or promotion of cigarettes.
A federal judge initially tossed a suit filed by three Maine residents against Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA Inc. unit that alleged ads for light cigarettes was unfair and deceptive.
The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, however, reinstated the suit.
The Maine plaintiffs said they smoked Marlboro Lights, made by Philip Morris, for at least 15 years.
They claim the company marketed the cigarettes as "light" and having "lowered tar and nicotine" despite knowing those statements were false, in violation of Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Philip Morris said the lawsuit was properly dismissed by the federal judge and called on the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict between appeals courts over these sorts of cases.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans last year dismissed a similar suit.
The court is also hearing a case involving whether federal civil rights law protects employees from retaliation when they cooperate with an investigation of sexual harassment allegations and a dispute over an insurer's dual role of determining an employee's eligibility for disability benefits and paying the benefits. MetLife Inc. is challenging a ruling that found companies have a conflict of interest in such cases.
