UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

and
TOBACCO-FREE KIDS ACTION FUND, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, AMERICANS FOR NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS, and NATIONAL AFRICAN AMERICAN TOBACCO PREVENTION NETWORK
Intervenors,

v.
PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, et al.
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 99-CV-02496 (GK)

In the U.S. Government racketeering case against tobacco companies, on August 17, 2006 the companies were found guilty of racketeering in a ruling by Judge Kessler, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Summary of Implications and Remedies
Press Release (Tobacco Products Liability Project)
Proposed Findings, USDOJ, August 2005

Implications of decision:

1) forever brand the cigarette companies as racketeers;
2) energize trial attorneys and provide a powerful set of documentary and testimonial evidence and findings of fact to bolster smoking and health litigation;
3) undermine the credibility of the companies as they try to push into emerging markets around the world; and
4) serve as a powerful antidote to cigarette company attempts to portray themselves as responsible corporate citizens.

[There will be considerable work involved in capitalizing on the decision, however]

Remedies:

1) Prohibition of brand descriptors like “low tar,” “light,” “ultra light,” “mild,” “natural,” and any other words which reasonably could be expected to result in a consumer believing that smoking the cigarette brand using that descriptor may result in a lower risk of disease or be less hazardous.
2) Issuance of corrective statement dealing with
(a) the adverse health effects of smoking;
(b) the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine;
(c) the lack of any significant health benefit from smoking “low tar,” “light,” “ultra light,” “mild,” and “natural,” cigarettes;
(d) Defendants’ manipulation of cigarette design and composition to ensure optimum nicotine delivery; and
(e) the adverse health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke.

These statements will appear on the Defendants' websites; on or in all cigarette packs; in full page ads in all major newspapers; retail countertop displays; and primetime network TV spots. Such disclosures will really educate consumers and, to a large extent, help to inoculate them against the massive cigarette company public relations and image rehabilitation campaigns that have been going on throughout the decade.

3) Make all litigation document and key evidence available on Defendants' websites through 2016.
4) Disclose disaggregated marketing data to the Government.
5) Pay the Government's cost associated with the litigation (which may be in 10 figures).
 

See full Tobacco Products Liability Project press release from which the above Implications and Remedies were exerpted » Click Here

U.S. Department of Justice
Proposed Findings of Fact
Executive Summary
August 15, 2005

In the course of trial that began in September 2004 and lasted nearly nine months, the United States established facts that prove that each of the Defendants in this action has committed violations of Sections 1962(c) and 1962(d) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, as alleged in Counts 3 and 4 of the United States' First Amended Complaint. The evidence introduced by the United States – presented through 58 live witnesses, over 10,000 documents, and testimony of 120 witnesses appearing by prior designation – proves that Defendants have engaged in a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the American public, including consumers of cigarettes, and that Defendants' past and ongoing conduct establishes a reasonable likelihood of future violations. Accordingly, the totality of the evidence compels a finding that Defendants have violated RICO and warrants imposition of equitable relief to prevent and restrain Defendants from committing ongoing and future violations. The evidence supporting these findings is set forth in the United States' Post-Trial Proposed Findings of Fact. [Source]

Download full August 2005 USDOJ Proposed Findings Executive Summary (pdf, from the Tobacco Public Policy Center web site.)

USDOJ web site related to this case

Tobacco Product Liability Project press release