Massachusetts: Philip Morris ordered to compensate cancer victim

In a unanimous decision of May 9, 2023[1], the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered Philip Morris to pay $37 million in compensation to a woman who developed cancer after smoking the manufacturer's cigarettes.

The plaintiff, Patricia Walsh Greene, sued Philip Morris for false advertising and intentional misinformation intended to deceive consumers. Through these advertisements, the manufacturer claimed that its light cigarettes contained fewer toxic substances than regular conventional cigarettes. These claims influenced the plaintiff's decision to continue smoking, which led to her developing cancer.

Patricia Greene's main argument in the lawsuit was that Philip Morris engaged in what it legally called a "conspiracy" to defraud, particularly through its Marlboro Light cigarette advertisements. The plaintiff claimed to have quit smoking for nine months in 1995. But she then said she saw Marlboro Light advertisements, which convinced her that the product contained "less bad stuff." She claimed that Philip Morris knowingly concealed the health consequences of its cigarettes and their addictive nature, which it was aware of.

Philip Morris does not dispute the dangers of light cigarettes

Judge Scott P. Kafker, reporting to the Court, found in his opinion that the company had failed to disclose to its customers the results of its own research. This research showed that light cigarettes were just as harmful as "regular" cigarettes, and sometimes even more dangerous than regular cigarettes, and that they caused many cancers.

"Philip Morris claimed that its products, including the Marlboro Lights brand, contained less tar and nicotine and were a healthier alternative to regular cigarettes. Given Philip Morris's research into compensation and mutagenicity, the jury is able to conclude that these claims were knowingly false," the rapporteur said.

In their decision, the judges noted that Philip Morris had not disputed that cigarettes, including light cigarettes, were harmful to health. However, the tobacco company argued that there was no evidence establishing a direct link between its advertisements and Patricia Walsh Greene's personal decision to adopt Marlboro Lights as a safer alternative.

This Massachusetts Supreme Court decision comes on the heels of several convictions against Philip Morris for deliberately concealing the dangers of its products. Among the landmark decisions is Judge Gladys Kessler's landmark 2006 decision under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).[2].

Legal action is a recognized method of redress that is particularly effective. The WHO's international treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), includes a specific article on the criminal and civil liability of the industry through this method.[3].

HD

[1] PATRICIA WALSH GREENE & another vs. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC & another, Massachusetts Supreme Court, May 9, 2023.

[2] US V. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. (1999), Public Health Law Center at Mitchel Hamline School of Law.

[3] WHO FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON TOBACCO CONTROL