In 1999, the United States filed a lawsuit against the major cigarette manufacturers and related trade organizations alleging that defendants fraudulently misled American consumers for decades about the risks and dangers of cigarette smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke in violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In 2006, the court found that defendants violated RICO and that there was a reasonable likelihood that defendants would continue to violate civil provisions of RICO in the future. On appeal, the district court’s findings were upheld, in part, vacated, in part, and remanded, in part, to the district court. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from both sides in the case in June 2010, the district court began to implement the 2006 final order.
Several defendants filed a motion to clarify the 2006 final order on two points. The court denied the request to clarify the general prohibitions against future violations of RICO, noting that the nine-month trial and the subsequent findings of fact entered by the court provided the defendants with sufficient notice of the kinds of conduct restricted by the injunction. The court granted the request to clarify the extraterritorial implications of the injunction and determined that the prohibitions against deceptive health information and misleading descriptors applied without, as well as within, the United States.
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., 477 F. Supp. 2d 191 (D.D.C. 2007).
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
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.
The tobacco industry may have perpetrated a fraud upon the public or the courts by presenting false information or deliberately hiding known-facts.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Under the “effects test,” RICO has extraterritorial effect where illegal activity abroad causes a “substantial effect” within the United States. As to the effects test, there is no question that, as the Findings of Fact detail at great length (particularly in the sections on international organizations, committees, and groups (Section III. I.), environmental tobacco smoke (Section V. G. 6 and 7), destruction of documents and suppression of scientific research (Section V. H.)), the fraud perpetrated by Defendants involved extensive activity that occurred outside our national borders. For example, Defendants participated in an extraordinary number of international organizations and committees throughout the world, used scientists in countries as far apart as Switzerland, Japan, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Thailand, Argentina, and Brazil, engaged in document destruction in Australia, concealed and destroyed research documents in England, and supported extensive smoking and health research in both Germany and England. All these activities, despite being carried out beyond our shores, were part of the Defendants’ scheme to defraud the American public about the adverse health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke. The activities which took place abroad were all devoted to advancing and furthering the efforts of the Defendants to mislead and deceive American smokers and potential smokers about the lower health risks of “low tar,” “lite,” “ultra lite,” “mild” and “natural” cigarettes, as well as the dangers of smoking, nicotine addiction, and environmental tobacco smoke. In such circumstances, and taking into account the need to respect principles of international comity, the Court concludes that there is no reason to believe that Congress intended to exclude from a remedial injunctive order (in this case, Section II. A. 4 of the Remedial Order) activities by Defendants, over whom the Court has personal jurisdiction, to the extent they fall within the Order’s prohibitions because they adversely affect the health and welfare of American smokers, potential smokers and passive smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, merely because they occur outside the physical boundaries of the United States."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
In 1999, the United States filed a lawsuit against the major cigarette manufacturers and related trade organizations alleging that defendants fraudulently misled American consumers for decades about the risks and dangers of cigarette smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke in violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In 2006, the court found that defendants violated RICO and that there was a reasonable likelihood that defendants would continue to violate civil provisions of RICO in the future. On appeal, the district court’s findings were upheld, in part, vacated, in part, and remanded, in part, to the district court. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from both sides in the case in June 2010, the district court began to implement the 2006 final order.
Several defendants filed a motion to clarify the 2006 final order on two points. The court denied the request to clarify the general prohibitions against future violations of RICO, noting that the nine-month trial and the subsequent findings of fact entered by the court provided the defendants with sufficient notice of the kinds of conduct restricted by the injunction. The court granted the request to clarify the extraterritorial implications of the injunction and determined that the prohibitions against deceptive health information and misleading descriptors applied without, as well as within, the United States.