Smoking and Lung Cancer: The Light Cigarette Lie
Many people smoked light cigarettes because they believed them to be a healthier alternative to regular brand cigarettes – AND MANY PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN SICK BECAUSE OF THAT LIE.
The cigarette companies knew the truth all along – not only are light cigarettes NOT better for you, they are more dangerous than regular brands.
The truth is that light cigarettes have never been a healthier alternative to regular cigarettes.
The word 'light' in light cigarettes is basically a marketing strategy used by tobacco companies to address smokers' health concerns and make cigarettes appear safer.
“I switched to light cigarettes because I thought they were better for
me.”
- Mary, Hartford, Illinois
“I switched to light cigarettes instead of quitting because I thought
they were lower in tar and nicotine.”
- Ron, Fairview Heights, Illinois
“I was happy when Marlboros came out with lights because it made me think
they cared about my health.”
- Everett, Edwardsville, Illinois
Korein Tillery - Leaders in Light Cigarette Litigation
Price v. Philip Morris Inc., The seven-week trial of Price in 2003 brought together preeminent leaders of the world public health community in support of an Illinois consumer fraud case challenging the use of the word "light" as a deceptive low-tar cigarette descriptor. In this first ever judgment rendered in a light cigarette fraud case, Korein Tillery obtained a $10.1 billion verdict ($7.1 billion compensatory and $3 billion punitive) in this class action lawsuit alleging fraud in the marketing of Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights cigarettes. Plaintiffs accused Philip Morris of misleading the Illinois class of consumers by packaging cigarettes as "Lights" and claiming that these cigarettes contain "lower tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes." The court agreed, holding not only that these "Lights" cigarettes deliver the same amount of tar and nicotine and are therefore just as harmful as a regular cigarettes, but also that the "Lights" cigarettes actually deliver more of the most toxic substances to smokers than regular cigarettes.
RECENT NEWS
For More Information
Contact: Stephen Tillery
Phone: 866-711-4329
KOREIN TILLERY TO APPEAL RULING IN PHILIP MORRIS CASE
(St. Louis, MO - February 5, 2009) Madison County Circuit Court Judge Dennis Ruth on Wednesday,February 4th, 2009 dismissed a petition filed by the Korein Tillery Law firm on behalf of the Plaintiffs to reopen the case of Price v. Philip Morris. The petition was filed on December 18th, 2008, by St. Louis attorney Stephen Tillery, to reopen the $10.1 billion judgment based on a decision of the United States Supreme Court in Altria v. Good. In its December 15th, 2005 decision reversing the $10.1 billion judgment in Price, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission(FTC) had authorized Philip Morris to use the words “light” and “lowered tar and nicotine” on Marlboro Lights packages and ordered the Consumer Fraud Case dismissed.
However, in Altria v. Good, decided December 15th, 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled that such claims as those made in Price v. Philip Morris could proceed. In the process of ruling in the Good case, the US Supreme Court held that low tar descriptors were never authorized by the FTC and effectively overruled the decision in Price. In that decision the US Supreme Court stated “Nor has the Commission (FTC) authorized the use of descriptors such as ‘light’ and ‘lowered tar and nicotine’… ‘The Commission never gave affirmative endorsement to such descriptors, much less to their deceptive use as alleged in respondent’s complaint.’
Because of petitions for rehearing and for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court, the final order dismissing the Price case pursuant to directions from the Illinois Supreme Court was not actually entered by the Madison County Trial Court until December 18th, 2006. Tillery’s petition on behalf of the Plaintiffs sought to vacate that December 18th, 2006 order based on an Illinois procedural rule allowing such judgments to be vacated within two years of entry based upon new facts or law.
During the hearing on Wednesday morning, Tillery offered evidence showing that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) specifically denied ever authorizing Philip Morris to use low tar descriptors. In a brief filed with the US Supreme Court in the Good case, the FTC specifically disavowed any policy authorizing the use of ‘light’ and ‘low tar’ descriptors. In his hour long argument, Tillery repeatedly referenced how the FTC consistently disputed the statements of fact and law made by the Illinois Supreme Court in the Price ruling.
In his ruling today, Judge Ruth held that ‘. . . the Court hereby grants the Defendant’s motion because Plaintiffs petition was not filed within two years of the Illinois Supreme Court’s judgment of December 15, 2005
“We obviously strongly disagree with the Court’s ruling and we will appeal his decision. Our petition sought relief from the December 18th, 2006 order and was clearly filed within two years of that date” stated Stephen M. Tillery.