Repudiating R.J. Reynolds’ contention that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) pre-empts plaintiffs’ claims that Reynolds engaged in intentional fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment regarding its “light” cigarettes, the Minnesota Court of Appeals today reinstated a lawsuit filed on behalf of smokers who were deceived by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.’s light cigarette scam.  The decision in Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., can be found at http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/current/opa051359-1204.htm

 The district court had ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims were predicated on a duty “based on smoking and health” and, thus, pre-empted by the FCLAA.  In today’s ruling, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, adhering to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., reversed the district court’s judgment.

 Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project (TPLP) of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, based at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, issued the following statement: “Light cigarette litigation is alive and well.  Today’s ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals is a total victory for the plaintiffs who brought this lawsuit because of the intentional fraud and misrepresentation that R.J. Reynolds engaged in as a deceptive way of promoting its ‘light’ cigarette brands.  The Court of Appeals correctly adhered to the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal ruling in Cipollone and recognized that the recent First Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc., rather than the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Brown v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., contained the proper analysis of the legal issue concerning pre-emption of claims.  I am thrilled that the Minnesota Court of Appeals totally repudiated R.J. Reynolds’ pre-emption claims in this case.  Today’s ruling will also be very helpful to plaintiffs with similar lawsuits in other states.”

Mark Gottlieb, Director of TPLP, noted that, "the legal tide in these light cigarette cases continues to shift against the tobacco companies as appeals court and even the U.S. Supreme court have rejected their various arguments for why they should be permitted to continue to deceive consumers of their "light" brands."  Gottlieb went on to say:  "They argued that they are acting as federal officers enforcing federal standards but the Supreme Court rejected that.  They argued that the federal law regulating cigarette labeling acts as a license to commit fraud.  The First Circuit has rejected that notion and now the Minnesota Court of Appeals has as well."

-- 30 --