Legal Opinion

In re Tobacco Cases II

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 28, 2015No. D065165PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

McCONNELL, P. J.

This action under the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) 1 and the false advertising law (FAL) (§ 17500 et seq.) arises from Philip Morris USA, Inc.’s (Philip Morris) use of terms such as “Lights” and “Lowered Tar and Nicotine” in advertising Marlboro Lights, to indicate they were less unhealthful than Marlboro Reds and other full-flavored cigarettes. The trial court determined Marlboro Lights were no less dangerous than any other cigarettes, Philip Morris knew that, and its advertising was likely to deceive consumers. The court, however,…

2Cases cited52 opinions

  1. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.California Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Altria Group, Inc. v. GoodSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  5. In Re Tobacco II CasesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009

47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
  2. Espejo v. Copley Press, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  3. Le v. Kohls Department Stores, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2016
  4. Esparza v. Safeway, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  5. Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2016

44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API