Court-Cases-Against-Tobacco-Industry

Tobacco industry tactics Tobacco industry tactics Tobacco industry tactics Tobacco industry tactics ––––Influence over policies Influence over policies Influence over policies Influence over policies ––––Use Use Use Use

of litigation as a toolof litigation as a toolof litigation as a toolof litigation as a tool

Litigation & Tobacco ControlLitigation & Tobacco ControlLitigation & Tobacco ControlLitigation & Tobacco Control

� Use�of�litigation�as�a�means�of�achieving�public�health�policy�goals

� Litigation�can�complement to�a�broader,�comprehensive�approach�to�

tobacco�control�policy�making

� Though�it�is�believed�that�public�health�goals�are�more�directly

achievable�through�the�political�process�than�through�litigation,�but�

tobacco�control�being�a�dynamic�public�health�problem�with�a�third�

party�like�the�tobacco�corporate�playing�a�very�active�role�in�

disturbing�the�policies�so�it�is�now�believed�that�the�boundaries��

between�litigation�and�the�politics�of�public�health�in�relation to�

tobacco�control�has�blurred.

� Over�a�period�of�time�it�has�been�proved�that�litigation�in�tobacco�

control�has�indeed�laid�the�foundation of�meaningful�policy�changes.�

Is the Industry Prepared?Is the Industry Prepared?Is the Industry Prepared?Is the Industry Prepared?

Any�Doubts???

Industry Preparedness Industry Preparedness Industry Preparedness Industry Preparedness ---- 1989198919891989

Is the Industry Prepared?Is the Industry Prepared?Is the Industry Prepared?Is the Industry Prepared?

Is the Industry Prepared?Is the Industry Prepared?Is the Industry Prepared?Is the Industry Prepared?Industry strategy in 80’s

to counter second-

hand smoke issue

Is the Industry Scared?Is the Industry Scared?Is the Industry Scared?Is the Industry Scared?

That’s why the tobacco industry is paying over 250 250 250 250 Billion U$ DollarsBillion U$ DollarsBillion U$ DollarsBillion U$ Dollars to all

50 states in USA as damages (Settlement)

Though the industry earned some longevity but

the industry is definitely on way out

Master Settlement AgreementMaster Settlement AgreementMaster Settlement AgreementMaster Settlement Agreement

Under�the�Master�Settlement�Agreement,�seven�

tobacco�companies�agreed�to�change�the�way�

tobacco�products�are�marketed�and�pay�the�states�

an�estimated�$206�billion�(+�Other�Costs).�The�

tobacco�companies�also�agreed�to�finance�a�$1.5�

billion�anti-smoking�campaign,�open�previously�

secret�industry�documents,�and�disband�industry�

trade�groups which�Attorneys�General�maintain�

conspired�to�conceal�damaging�research�from�the�

public.�

The GTC Case in CaliforniaThe GTC Case in CaliforniaThe GTC Case in CaliforniaThe GTC Case in CaliforniaTHEREFORE, default having been entered by the clerk against GTC, as requested by Plaintiff, JUDGMENT is accordingly entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against GTC with respect to all claims, AS FOLLOWS:

A. GTC shall, within fifteen (15) days of this Order, place into a Qualified Escrow Fund the following amounts as such amounts are adjusted for inflation as required by California Health and Safety Code section 104557(a)(2): Sales during the year 2002: (25,671,900 units x $0.0136125) plus 12.97355% for inflation for a total of $294,795.31. Sales during the year 2003: (34,374,640 units x, $0.0167539) plus 16.3627565% for inflation for a total of $670,133.61.

B. GTC shall, within fifteen (15) days of this Order, pay civil penalties in the amount of 300% of the escrow amounts improperly withheld, for a total of$3,192,986.76 for knowingly violating California Health and Safety Code section 104557(a)(2), (c), by failing to certify to the Attorney General for the State of California that it is in compliance with California's reserve fund statute and for knowingly failing to establish a qualified escrow fund as defined under California Health and Safety Code section 104556(1) and knowingly failing to deposit sufficient escrow funds into a qualified escrow fund as required under California Health and Safety Code section 104557.

C. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17206, GTC shall, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order, pay a penalty of$2,500.00 for each violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 alleged in the Third Cause of Action, for a total assessed penalty of $50,000 in addition to the penalty specified in Paragraph C of this judgment.

D. GTC shall, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order, shall appoint an agent for service of process in California (pursuant to Revenue & Taxation Code section 30165.1(f)(1) for enforcement of this judgment and order until this judgment is satisfied, the order is obeyed and the injunction is dissolved.

E. -------------

Initiating Through LitigationInitiating Through LitigationInitiating Through LitigationInitiating Through LitigationSUPREME�COURT�ORDERS�IN�MURLI�S.�DEORA�Vs.�UNION�OF�INDIA�CASE�IN�THE�SUPREME�COURT�OF�INDIA

CIVIL�ORIGINAL�JURISDICTION�WRIT�PETITION�(CIVIL)�No.�316�OF�1999

Murli S.�Deora … Petitioner�Versus�Union�of�India�and�Others�… Respondents

O�R�D�E�R

Heard�the�learned�counsel�for�the�parties.�

Fundamental�right�guaranteed�under�Article�21�of�Constitution�of India,�inter�alia,�provides�that�none�shall�be�deprived�of�his�life�without�due�process�of�law.�Then�— why�a�non-smoker�should�be�afflicted�by�various�diseases�including�lung�cancer�or�of�heart,�only�because�he�is�required�to�go�to�public�places?�Is�it�not�indirectly�depriving�of�his�life�without�any�process�of�law?�The�answer�is�obviously�- ‘yes’.�Undisputedly,�smoking�is�injurious�to�health�and�may�affect�the�health�of�smokers�but�there�is�no�reason�that�health�of�passive�smokers�should�also�be�injuriously�affected.�In�any�case,�there�is�no�reason�to�compel�non-smokers�to�be�helpless�victims�of�air�pollution.

The�statement�of�objects�and�reason�of�(The)�Cigarettes�(Regulation�of�Production,�Supply�and�Distribution)�Act,�1975,�inter�alia,�provides,�“Smoking�of�cigarettes�is�a�harmful�habit�and,�in�course�of�time, can�lead�to�grave�health�hazards.�Researches�carried�out�in�various�parts�of�the�world�have�confirmed�that�there�is�a�relationship�between�smoking�of�cigarettes�and�lung�cancer,�chronic�bronchitis;�certain�diseases�of�the�heart�and�arteries;�cancer�of�bladder,�prostrate,�mouth�pharynx�and�oesophagus;�peptic�ulcer�etc.,�are�also�reported�to�be�among�the�ill-effects�of�cigarette�smoking.”

Similarly,�the�statement�of�objects�and�reasons�of�The�Cigarettes�and�Other�Tobacco�Products�(Prohibition�of�Advertisement�and�Regulation�of�Trade�and�Commerce,�Production,�Supply�and�Distribution)�Bill,�2001,�provides,�“Tobacco�is�universally�regarded�as�one�of�the�major�public�health�hazards�and�is�responsible�directly�or�indirectly�for�an�estimated�eight�lakh deaths�annually�in�the�country.It�has�also�been�found�that�treatment�of�tobacco�related�diseases�and�the�loss�of�productivity�caused�therein�cost�the�country�almost�Rs.13,500/- crores annually,�which�more�than�offsets�all�the�benefits�accruing�in�the�form�of�revenue�and�employment�generated�by�tobacco�industry”.

Initiating Through LitigationInitiating Through LitigationInitiating Through LitigationInitiating Through Litigation

SUPREME�COURT�ORDERS�IN�MURLI�S.�DEORA�Vs.�UNION�OF�INDIA�CASE�IN�THE�SUPREME�COURT�OF�INDIA

In�this�view�of�the�matter,�when�this�petition�under�Article�32�of�the�Constitution�of�India�came�for�orders�on�31st�August,�2001,�we�have�passed�order�for�implementing�1975�Act.�At that�time�of�hearing,�learned�Attorney�General�as�well�as�counsel�for�the�parties�submitted�that�considering�harmful�effect�of�smoking,�smoking�in�public�places�is�required�to�be�prohibited.�On�this�submission,�we�sought�response�of�the�Central�Government.�As�no�affidavit�was�filed�during�the�stipulated�time�by�the�Central�Government,�on�28th�September,�2001,�we�were�required�to�adjourn�the�matter.�Today�also,�when�the�matter�came�up�for�hearing,�no�response�is�filed�on�behalf�of�the�Central�Government.�However,�learned�Attorney�General�with�all�emphasis�at�his�command�submitted�that�appropriate�order�banning�smoking�in�public�places�be�passed.�Learned�counsel�for�the�petitioner�also�submitted�to�the�aforesaid�effect.�Counsel�appearing�for�other�respondents�also�supported�the�same.

In�the�petition,�it�is�pointed�out�that�tobacco�smoking�contains harmful�contents�including�nicotine,�tar,�potential�carcinogens,�carbon�monoxide,�irritants,�asphyxiates�and�smoke�particles�which�are�the�cause�of�many�diseases�including�the�cancer.�It�is�alleged�that�three�million�people�die�every�year�as�a�result�of�illness�related�to�the�use�of�tobacco�products�of�which�one�million�people�belong�to�developing�countries�like�India.�The�World�Health�Organisation is�stated�to�have�estimated�that�tobacco�related�deaths�can�rise�to a�whopping�seven�million�per�year.�According�to�this�organisation,�in�the�last�half�century�in�the�developing�countries�alone�smoking�has�killed�more�than�sixty�million�people.�Tobacco�smoking�also�adds�to�the�air�pollution.�Besides�cancer,�tobacco�smoking�is�responsible�for�various�other�fatal�diseases�to�the�mankind.

It�is�further�submitted�that�statutory�provisions�are�being�made for�prohibiting�smoking�in�public�places�and�the�Bill�introduced�in�the�Parliament�is�pending�consideration�before�a�Select�Committee.�The�State�of�Rajasthan�has�claimed�to�have�passed�Act�No.14�of�2000�to�provide�for�prohibition�of�smoking�in�place�of�public�work�or�use�and�in�public�service�vehicles�for�that�State.�It�is�stated�that�in�Delhi�also�there�is�prohibition�of�smoking�in�public�places.

Learned�Attorney�General�for�India�submits�and�all�the�counsel�appearing�for�the�other�parties�agree�that�considering�the�adverse�effect�of�smoking�in�public�places,�it�would�be�in�the�interests�of�the�citizens�to�prohibit�the�smoking�in�public�places�till�the�statutory�provision�is�made�and�implemented�by�the�legislative�enactment.�The�persons�not�indulging�in�smoking�cannot�be�compelled�to�or�subjected�to�passive�smoking�on�account�of�acts�of�the�smokers.

Initiating Through LitigationInitiating Through LitigationInitiating Through LitigationInitiating Through LitigationSUPREME�COURT�ORDERS�IN�MURLI�S.�DEORA�Vs.�UNION�OF�INDIA�CASE�IN�THE�SUPREME�COURT�OF�INDIA

Realising the�gravity�of�the�situation�and�considering�the�adverse�effect of�smoking�on�smokers�and�passive�smokers,�we�direct�and�prohibit�smoking�in�public�places�and�issue�directions�to�the�Union�of�India,�State�Governments�as�well�as�the�Union�Territories�to�take�effective�steps�to�ensure�prohibiting�smoking�in�public�places,�namely:

• Auditoriums

• Hospital�Buildings

• Health�Institutions

• Educational�Institutions

• Libraries

• Court�Buildings

• Public�Office

• Public�Conveyances,�including�Railways.

Learned�Attorney�General�for�India�assured�the�court�that�Union�of�India�shall�take�necessary�effective�steps�to�give�wide�publicity�to�this�order�by�electronic�as�well�as�print�media�to�make�the�general�public�aware�of�this�order�of�prohibition�of�smoking.

We�further�direct�the�Registrar�General�to�intimate�the�State�Governments/Union�Territories�as�well�as�the�Commissioners�of�Police�as�mentioned�in�our�orders�dated�31st�August,�2001�and�28th�September,�2001�of�this�Court�with�directions�for�submission�of�their�compliance�report�in�this�Court�within�five�weeks�from�today.�Union�of�India�shall�also�file�its�response�at�the�earliest.

List�after�six�weeks.

…………………………J.(M.B.�Shah)

New�Delhi;�………………………….J.November�2,�2001.�(R.P.�Sethi)

Implementation Through LitigationImplementation Through LitigationImplementation Through LitigationImplementation Through LitigationImplementation Through LitigationImplementation Through LitigationImplementation Through LitigationImplementation Through Litigation

The Civil Writ Petition in 2005 filed

in Punjab and Haryana High Court (India) resulted in one

of the tobacco companies dropping the name of its

cigarette brand for “Bravery Award”

ceremonies.

The cognizance by the court also saw initiation of policy shift on tobacco control in the

region.

Implementation Through Implementation Through Implementation Through Implementation Through LitigationLitigationLitigationLitigation

The case of “Pictorial Warnings” in India

Despite�the�industries�displeasure,�a�High�Court�in�India�took�up�the�case�after�which�the�Pictorial�Warning�notification�was�issued�……..�Unfortunately�the�Public�Interest�Writ�Petition�was�withdrawn�for�certain�unfortunate�reasons.

Litigation to Fill the GapsLitigation to Fill the GapsLitigation to Fill the GapsLitigation to Fill the Gaps

Standard TricksStandard TricksStandard TricksStandard Tricks

Numer Uno

FREEDOM�OF�CHOICEARGUMENT

Counter�Argument

If�Freedom�of�Choice�be�an�argument�then�it�also�applies�to�all�hard�drugs�too�– Why�limit�to�Tobacco

Standard TricksStandard TricksStandard TricksStandard Tricks

Commonly�Used

VIOLATION�OF�

FREEDOM�OF�EXPRESSIONCounter�Argument

Right�to�Life�a�bigger�right�– It’s�a�constitutionally�

protected�right�in�all�countries�of�the�world

Glaring�Example

USA�– Non�Ratification�of�FCTC�by�citing�“First�

Amendment”

Standard TricksStandard TricksStandard TricksStandard TricksCommonly�Used

VIOLATION�OF�FUNDAMENTAL�RIGHT�

TO�PROFESS�ANY�TRADECounter�Argument

All�trade�and�professions�have�to�function�within�the�ambit�

of�the�law�and�the�Government�has�all�the�powers�to�

restrict�the�trade�of�any�good.�Not�only�this�in�case�of�any�

product�harmful/deleterious�to�environment/health,�the�

Government�can�all�together�ban�it.

Example

Pictorial�warning�case

Newer TricksNewer TricksNewer TricksNewer Tricks

Common�Trick��(Overt)

GETTING�CONTRADICTIONS�IN�THE�

DELEGATED�LEGISLATION�

(And�then�Challenge�them�in�court)Results

Such�Laws�get�struck�in�the�court�and�are�found�

unconstitutional/illegal�as�a�result�it�makes�a�bad�precedence

Counter-Counter�Trick�of�the�Industry

Get�a�Writ/Case�filed�in�the�court�and�let�it�appear�to�be�pro-tobacco�

control�– The�results�of�such�writs�in�a�way�help�the�tobacco�industry�

– Example�the�Fire�Safe�Cigarettes

Newer TricksNewer TricksNewer TricksNewer Tricks

Going to International Tribunal / Courts on Trade

Phillip�Morris�Case�in�Thailand

State�of�Philippines�Vs.�Thailand

(Even�EU�has�joined�as�a�party)

The Different Games in the The Different Games in the The Different Games in the The Different Games in the CourtCourtCourtCourt

The restriction of The restriction of The restriction of The restriction of ““““depiction of depiction of depiction of depiction of smokingsmokingsmokingsmoking”””” in movies casein movies casein movies casein movies case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Present: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pradyuman Dubey,Mr. C.M. Lal, Advocates for the petitioner, in WP(C) 18761/2005 and WP(C) 23716/2005.Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocates for the petitioner in WP(C) 7410-11-2006.Mr. P.P. Malhotra, Additional Solicitor Generarl with Mr. Suresh Kait,Mr. Mukul Gupta, Advocates for Union of India.

WP(C) 18761/2005, WP(C) 23716/2005 and WP(C) 7410-11/2006

Since we have differed on the constitutional validity of the Rules of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Rules, 2004 as amended in 2005 framed under the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 vide our separate judgments delivered today on 7th February 2008, let this matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, to nominate another learned Single Judge to resolve thedifference of opinion.

Interim order to continue until further orders.

A copy of the judgments be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties, under the signatures of the Court Master.

MUKUL MUDGAL, J SANJIV KHANNA, J

February 07, 2008/dr

The The The The ““““Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActOrganizations ActOrganizations ActOrganizations Act”””” VerdictVerdictVerdictVerdict

This�ruling�is�the�culmination�of�a�lawsuit�the�U.S.�Department�of�Justice�filed�under�the�civil�racketeering�(RICO)�law�on�September�22,�1999,�to�hold�the�tobacco�companies�legally�accountable�for�decades�of�illegal�and�harmful�practices.�The�trial�in�the�case�lasted�from�September�21,�2004,�to�June�9,�2005.

Judge�Kessler's�1,683-page�final�opinion�powerfully�and�thoroughly�details�the�tobacco companies'�unlawful�activity�and�the�devastating�consequences�for�our�nation's�health�over�more�than�50�years.

"(This�case)�is�about�an�industry,�and�in�particular�these�Defendants,�that�survives,�and�profits,�from�selling�a�highly�addictive�product�which�causes�diseases�that�lead�to�a�staggering�number�of�deaths per�year,�an�immeasurable�amount�of�human�suffering�and�economic�loss,�and�a�profound�burden�on�our�national�health�care�system. Defendants�have�known�these�facts�for�at�least�50�years�or�more.�Despite�that�knowledge,�they�have�consistently,�repeatedly,�and�with�enormous�skill�and�sophistication,�denied�these�facts�to�the�public,�to�the�Government,�and�to�the�public�health�community...�In�short,�Defendants�have�marketed�and�sold�their�lethal�products�with�zeal,�with�deception,�with�a�single-minded�focus�on�their�financial�success,�and�without�regard�for�the�human�tragedy�or�social�costs�that�success�exacted," Judge�Kessler�wrote�(pages�3-4�of�the�opinion).

Judge�Kessler�issued�a�Final�Judgment�and�Remedies�Order that:

� Prohibits�the�tobacco�companies�from�committing�acts�of�racketeering�in�the�future�or�making�false,�misleading�or�deceptive�statements�concerning�cigarettes�and�their�health�risks.�

� Bans�terms�including�"low�tar,"�"light,"�"ultra�light,"�"mild,"�and�"natural"�that�have�been�used�to�mislead�consumers�about�thehealth�risks�of�smoking�and�prohibit�the�tobacco�companies�from�conveying�any�explicit�or�implicit�health�message�for�any�cigarette�brand.�

� Requires�the�tobacco�companies�to�make�corrective�statements�concerning�the�health�risks�of�smoking�and�secondhand smoke�and�their�deceptive�practices�through�newspaper�and�television�advertising,�their�web�sites�and�as�part�of�cigarette�packaging.�

� Extends�and�expands�current�requirements�that�the�tobacco�companies�make�public�their�internal�documents�produced�in�litigation.�

� Requires�the�tobacco�companies�to�report�marketing�data�annually to�the�government.�

The SolutionThe SolutionThe SolutionThe Solution

Tobacco�Companies�have�explored�all�corners�of�the�legal�

system�but�still………

There�are�limited�versions�of�the�GAME(More�or�less�similar�across�the�world)

The�way�to�beat�them�in�their�own�game�is�to�

BE�BETTER�PREPARED(Understand�all�the�versions�of�the�legal�games�the�industry�plays)

&

BE�PROACTIVE�AND�AGRESSIVE