A Missouri court has certified two class action lawsuits against Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, that accuse the tobacco giants of misrepresenting the amount of tar and nicotine certain brands of “lights” cigarettes contain.
Brands listed in the lawsuits are Marlboro Lights from Philip Morris Companies and Salem Lights, Winston Lights, Camel Lights or Camel Special Lights, from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Judge Michael P. David, of the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri, said that “there can be no assumption (under Missouri law) that the purchase price plaintiff(s) paid for (their) Marlboro Lights represents the value that the product would have had if it had truly been as represented: a low tar, low-nicotine cigarette.” In his ruling, Judge David said that the “Plaintiff(s have) a very plausible chance of proving such ascertainable losses and damages.”
“Logic and reason suggest that a true low-tar, low-nicotine cigarette very probably would have had an economic worth and value greater (perhaps even considerably greater) than a comparable non-low tar, low nicotine cigarette, due to the health reassurance factor–due to the added value that would be inherent in a less toxic, less harmful, ’safer’ cigarette,” added Judge David.
Plaintiffs’ counsel, Stephen A. Sheller, said, “This is a significant victory for defrauded Light cigarette smokers in a majority of states across the country. For purposes of this case, the Judge acknowledged that the defendants admitted that Marlboro Lights deliver no less tar and nicotine then regular Marlboros, even though defendants falsely represented that they did. Both cigarettes cost the same but Marlboro Lights were fraudulently marketed as being less harmful which is just not true.”
“Light cigarette” cases are pending in at least 11 other states.
(via Business Wire)
{ 2 comments }
where can I talk to someone about Walgreens requiring all customers from 1 to 100 to show id when purchasing cigarettes and then taking information off the id’s to record into thier computers,It seems to me that although showing id if you look underage is one thing but taking information from a 60 year old- than punching in information off my id should be some type of violation of my personal information rights. Is there anyone that knows where I can find informaion on whether this is a violation of my rights?
I used to work for Walgreens, they do post a sign on the front door and also at the register that states they card customers under 40. I do think it is wrong if a customer has grey hair, to ask for their I>D> . I believe they should tell their cashiers to use common sense. The only problem is the Managers put pressure on the cashiers to ask I.D. from everyone so they do not get caught by the state inspectors. When the cashiers daily report prints out at the end of their shift, the report tells the manager and the district office what percentage of customers are asked for I.D., by how many times he or she enters in customer information. It is not the cashiers fault, she or he is always being pressured by management.
To solve your problem, I would not shop at Walgreens, they discriminate against older employees and certain races.
Comments on this entry are closed.