Top Defense Results: In re Tobacco Cases II

Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP successfully represented Philip Morris USA Inc. in a 10-week bench trial involving the health risks of Marlboro Lights cigarettes.

San Diego County Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prager considered the plaintiffs' causes of action under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. He ruled that the plaintiffs' attorneys from Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc. failed to establish entitlement to either restitution or injunctive relief, but he did find that Philip Morris "misrepresented that Marlboro Lights were less harmful than Marlboro Reds" and "knew there was no health benefit" to smoking the light brand.

At trial, a class consisting of California Marlboro Lights smokers from June 1993 to April 2001 sought between $545 million and $1 billion in restitution, as well as various forms of injunctive relief. In re Tobacco Cases II, JCCP4042 (San Diego Super. Ct., filed June 10, 1997).

More than 16 years after the original complaint was filed, Prager wrote in a 21-page opinion that plaintiffs were not entitled to a remedy because of "fundamental flaws" in their expert witness' conjoint survey analysis, a statistical technique that seeks to measure how much people value the individual features of a product. He also rejected plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, finding that new labeling wasn't necessary because Philip Morris removed the word "lights" from all packages of Marlboro Lights in 2010. The cigarettes are now sold as "Malboro Golds." The company also removed references to "lowered tar and nicotine" in 2003.

Lead defense counsel Gregory P. Stone said the team worked hard to demonstrate that plaintiffs suffered no economic damages and "to show legally that consumers make well-informed decisions about the products they buy."

Plaintiffs' attorneys said in an emailed statement that they believe the court misinterpreted the standard of proof for a restitution award, which will be the focus of their pending appeal.

"The Court interpreted California law to limit restitution to the difference between the price paid and the value received," the statement said. "It is the plaintiffs' position that the standard applied by the Court is inconsistent with California law."

- OMAR SHAMOUT

<!-- Top Defense Results: In re Tobacco Cases II -->