Brian Cleary and Rita Burke filed a suit against the major cigarette maker Phili

Question

Brian Cleary and Rita Burke filed a suit against the major cigarette maker Philip Morris USA, Inc., seeking class-action status for a claim of deceptive advertising. Cleary and Burke claimed that ?olight?? cigarettes, such as Marlboro Lights, were advertised as safer than regular cigarettes, even though the health effects are the same. They contended that the tobacco companies concealed the true nature of light cigarettes. Philip Morris correctly claimed that it was authorized by the government to advertise cigarettes, including light cigarettes. Assuming that is true, should the plaintiffs still be able to bring a deceptive advertising claim against the tobacco company? Why or why not? [Cleary v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 683 F.Supp.2d 730 (N. D. Ill. 2010)]

Explanation / Answer

As advertising cigarates was allowed by the government, now the advertisement was not supported by proper scientific eevidence so it may or may not be siad as deceptive advertising. So plaintiff has to produce empirical evidence like personal loss to support the claim else the claim will not stand against defendent.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse B
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.