Statement of Joel J. Africk, Chief Executive Officer, American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago
Regarding Class Actions and Price v. Philip Morris
Many recent news stories about class action lawsuits in Illinois overlook one of the most significant consumer class action lawsuits in recent memory, last year’s $10+ billion judgment in Price v. Philip Morris. The trial judge’s fifty-one page ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in that case reminds us of the important role class actions play in protecting consumers against deceptive business practices.
That ruling exposed the facts--and dangers-- of “light” or lower tar and nicotine cigarettes such as Marlboro Lights, which were marketed to consumers for years as a healthier alternative to regular cigarettes. Consumers believed that those cigarettes were safer than regular cigarettes, and Philip Morris sold over $7.5 billion of light cigarettes in Illinois alone.
The problem with light cigarettes, as we learned from the judge’s decision, is that they were a fraud. And Philip Morris knew it. According to the trial court’s decision, Philip Morris’s own testing revealed that smokers of light cigarettes received the same dose of nicotine and tar as they received from regular cigarettes, and Philip Morris knew all along that the light cigarettes were not safer than their regular counterparts. Nevertheless, it marketed the light cigarettes and capitalized on smokers’ concerns about the negative health impact of smoking.
The Price decision doesn’t stop there. The trial court went on to find, based on the evidence, that light cigarettes actually were more dangerous than regular cigarettes. The judge concluded, based in part on toxicity testing performed by Philip Morris itself, that smokers of Marlboro Lights actually received higher levels of most of the toxic substances found in cigarette smoke than they would have received from smoking regular Marlboros. The court also observed that there was credible evidence that dramatic increases in lung cancers known as adenocarcinomas could be linked to the increased usage of light cigarettes.
The court concluded, based on all of the evidence, that “the course of conduct by Philip Morris related to its fraud was outrageous, both because Philip Morris’ motive was evil and the acts showed a reckless disregard for the consumers’ rights.” No wonder the court imposed punitive damages against Philip Morris.
The Price case was not about a personal injury from smoking. Nor was it an instance of a class action lawyer exploiting a technicality in search of a big payday. It was a hard-fought suit over bedrock principles of fairness for consumers. (As evidence of how hard fought the suit was, Philip Morris filed 27 different affirmative defenses in response to the charges!) And the suit may have been completely necessary to get Philip Morris to stop what the court plainly viewed to be deceptive marketing practices.
Several years have passed since the Price judgment was handed down in Madison County on March 21, 2003. Next time you think class action lawsuits are of limited utility, look for a pack of Marlboro Light cigarettes. The packs no longer claim that the cigarettes are lower in tar and nicotine. Or listen to the Philip Morris television ads that now admit there is no safe cigarette. Congratulations to the courageous lawyers who prosecuted the Price decision and to the trial court who entered a judgment that was apparently big enough to get Philip Morris’s attention.
Joel J. Africk
Chief Executive Officer, American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago