Back to previous page
Massachusetts Court Reverses Lights Ruling;
Philip Morris USA Says Ruling Limited to Massachusetts
NEW YORK (August 13, 2004) - Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reinstated a "lights" class action, ruling that Massachusetts Consumer Protection laws require the trial court to allow the case to proceed as a class action but noting that the class certification "may be revisited" at a later time. The ruling is limited to Massachusetts.
The decision came in the Aspinall case, which was initially certified as a class action by a Massachusetts trial court on October 11, 2001 but decertified by a judge of the state's intermediate appellate court. In Aspinall, plaintiffs seek only to recover for economic loss, and not personal injuries.
In today's 4-3 decision, the states highest court reversed a decision last year by the intermediate appellate court, which ruled that the case should not have been certified as a class action by the trial court because there are too many individual issues for a single trial.
"Even if the court's certification decision were to stand, Philip Morris USA believes that plaintiffs will not be able to prove at trial that there was any deceptive conduct, as required by the Massachusetts statute, or that consumers were actually damaged as a result of the purchases," said William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA vice president and associate general counsel.
"All of the class members bought Marlboro Light cigarettes that were sold with the same health warnings that are placed on every other brand of cigarettes, whether full flavor, 'light,' or 'ultra-light;' they paid the same price for Marlboro Lights as they would have paid for full-flavored Marlboros. Many continue to smoke Marlboro Lights despite knowing they may not be getting lowered 'tar' because of the way they smoke," he said.
Ohlemeyer also noted that, because the Massachusetts court based its decision primarily on the particular record and decisions interpreting the state's Consumer Protection law, the decision should have no bearing on the company's appeal of the Price class action verdict in Illinois. In contrast to the Massachusetts court's interpretation of the Massachusetts statute, the deception, causation and injury requirements of the Illinois Consumer Protection statute have been interpreted differently by the Illinois courts.
In another case involving "light" cigarettes, last year in the Hines case in Florida, an appellate court refused to allow the case to proceed as a class action. Plaintiffs have moved for reconsideration of that ruling.
