Cigarettes. Tobacco. Second-hand smoke. Cancer. Over the years, many lawsuits have been brought against tobacco companies. However, it was not until the late 1990s and early 2000s that any progress was made. The case, U.S. v. Philip Morris, Inc. was groundbreaking, as it was the first case in which a major tobacco company had to pay a large sum of money to a plaintiff (Tobacco). Since then, legislation such as the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 has been passed, requiring cigarette companies to place more noticeable and more graphic warning labels on cigarette boxes, in the hopes of decreasing those harmed by cigarettes. Because of this case, which, without a fair trial, would likely not have ended with the decision going against the tobacco company, there has been action requiring tobacco products to be advertised in less appealing and misleading ways.
In U.S. v. Philip Morris, Inc., Philip Morris, Inc., was accused of having targeted minors in its marketing campaigns. It was also accused of concealing information regarding the addictiveness of nicotine and the dangers of secondhand smoke (Eubanks). Selling cigarettes and other tobacco products to those under eighteen is illegal, and yet, Philip Morris, Inc. marketed its products toward teens. The court ruled that Philip …show more content…
In fact, for the first fifty years or so of lawsuits against tobacco companies, the tobacco companies won each time. In the 1990s, it was discovered that many cigarette companies had been hiding research that showed the addictiveness of nicotine (Tobacco). These companies, for many years, had claimed that tobacco was not addictive and that they had no liability in the harmful effects users suffered. At the same time, they had claimed that the consumer, in using tobacco products, was responsible for being aware of the
In U.S. v. Philip Morris, Inc., Philip Morris, Inc., was accused of having targeted minors in its marketing campaigns. It was also accused of concealing information regarding the addictiveness of nicotine and the dangers of secondhand smoke (Eubanks). Selling cigarettes and other tobacco products to those under eighteen is illegal, and yet, Philip Morris, Inc. marketed its products toward teens. The court ruled that Philip …show more content…
In fact, for the first fifty years or so of lawsuits against tobacco companies, the tobacco companies won each time. In the 1990s, it was discovered that many cigarette companies had been hiding research that showed the addictiveness of nicotine (Tobacco). These companies, for many years, had claimed that tobacco was not addictive and that they had no liability in the harmful effects users suffered. At the same time, they had claimed that the consumer, in using tobacco products, was responsible for being aware of the