TobaccoReporter logo

Tag: RJ Reynolds

  • Massachusetts Judge Issues Record-Setting Judgement

    Massachusetts Judge Issues Record-Setting Judgement

    A judge in Hampden County, Massachusetts, issued one of the biggest individual civil judgments in history, awarding $105 million to the family of a deceased smoker. Judge Edward McDonough Jr.’s decision came a month after a jury awarded the plaintiffs $10.6 million after a month-long trial, with the judge saying the defendant, R.J. Reynolds, “willfully and wantonly” engaged in a conspiracy to hide the health hazards of cigarette smoking.

    Kevin Penza, along with his daughter, Kimberly Breen Penza, sued on behalf of his late wife, Jacqueline, who died from lung cancer at 59. The plaintiffs argued Jacqueline spent much of her life trying to quit the smoking habit, but was trapped in a nicotine addiction she could not defeat. The defense countered she was a committed smoker who made her own choices and refused to quit despite pleas from her family and doctors.

    McDonough began with the jury’s $10.6 million decision and added $2 million in attorney’s fees. The additional sum included interest and fees, but he did not clarify how the final sum was reached. R.J. Reynolds is expected to appeal this ruling.

  • Top Court Declines to Hear Flavor Ban Appeal

    Top Court Declines to Hear Flavor Ban Appeal

    Image: Tobacco Reporter archive

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27 declined to hear an appeal by three Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries seeking to overturn the county of Los Angeles ban on flavored tobacco products, reports Law360.

    R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., American Snuff Co. and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. had petitioned the high court in October to take another look at the case after the full 9th Circuit upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the suit.

    The RAI companies said the 9th Circuit had twice before erred in allowing sales bans at the state and local level that were preempted by federal law.

    While the federal Tobacco Control Act grants state and local municipalities broad authority to regulate the sale of tobacco products, it does not allow them to completely prohibit the sale of those products for failing to meet state or local tobacco product standards, the companies argued.

    In dismissing their initial suit, District Judge Dale S. Fischer in 2021 found that the ban doesn’t regulate tobacco product standards. The judge said the ordinance is protected by the federal law’s preservation clause, which allows states and localities to prohibit the sale of tobacco products even if those bans are stricter than federal law.

    The companies appealed, calling the ban unconstitutional and saying state and local governments can’t bar the sale of tobacco products because they disagree with federal tobacco standards.

    L.A. County countered that the ban doesn’t pose an obstacle to federal policy since the FDA announced it intends to ban menthol cigarettes and all flavored cigars.

  • Tobacco Firms Settle Messaging Dispute

    Tobacco Firms Settle Messaging Dispute

    Several tobacco companies have reached an agreement in long-running litigation brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and certain public health organizations regarding the communication of tobacco-related messaging at retail locations.

    The agreement will require Altria, Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and ITG Brands to supply their contracted stores with court-ordered signs that must be posted for 21 months.

    The agreement covers the last remaining dispute from the lawsuit DOJ filed against Altria, Philip Morris USA and R..J Reynolds in the 1990s, according to the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS).

    “This litigation has always put the retailers in a uniquely bad position,” said Doug Kantor, NACS general counsel. “Retailers were not parties to the lawsuit and should not be burdened with a court-ordered remedy, but this negotiated outcome avoids even worse results that DOJ and public health groups were advocating.”

    The agreement provides that each store under contract with one of the manufacturers will have to post at least one sign carrying one of 17 different, pre-approved health messages that will be distributed at random to retailers around the country.

    Each store will be required to rotate to a new message halfway through the time period required in the agreement. The manufacturers will be required to hire auditors to check whether the signs are properly posted. A summary of the agreement explaining the requirements on retailers as well as answers to frequently asked questions about it can be found here.

    A hearing on the proposed agreement will be held in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 28 and 29. The court will then decide whether to accept the agreement and enter an order to implement it.

    The timing of the requirements for signs to be posted will depend on when the court decides whether to accept the agreement.