TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Smith v. Philip Morris Companies

A class action lawsuit against major tobacco companies argued that the companies fixed prices following “Marlboro Friday,” a day in 1993 in which a Philip Morris retail promotion lowered the price of Marlboros by approximately 20 percent. The class action represented Kansas purchasers of cigarettes who alleged that the tobacco companies conspired to fix the wholesale price of cigarettes in violation of state law. The court ruled that the class had failed to provide evidence proving price fixing and affirmed an earlier judgment in favor of the tobacco companies. In particular, the court found that the class failed to provide evidence that the tobacco companies were actively colluding with each other and not acting independently in changing prices.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Smith v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., No. 108,491, Kan. Ct. App. (July 18, 2014).

  • United States
  • Jul 18, 2014
  • Court of Appeals of Kansas

Parties

Plaintiff Daric Smith, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated

Defendant

  • British American Tobacco Co. Ltd.
  • Brooke Group, Ltd.
  • Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
  • Liggett Group, Inc.
  • Lorillard Tobacco Co.
  • Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
  • Philip Morris Incorporated
  • Philip Morris International, Inc.
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Legislation Cited

Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, K.S.A. 50-101 et seq.

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Enforcement Action by a Private Individual or Private Entity
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.

Tobacco Control Topics

Industry Interference
Measures to protect health policies from the commercial or other vested interests of the tobacco industry. (See FCTC Art. 5.3)
Price and Tax Measures
Tax or price measures, including tax- and duty-free regulation. (See FCTC Art. 6)

Substantive Issues

Right to Procedural Due Process
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Consumer Protection Violation

Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.

Industry-Perpetrated Fraud
The tobacco industry may have perpetrated a fraud upon the public or the courts by presenting false information or deliberately hiding known-facts.
Procedural Defect
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2025 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by