Brazilian Government Sues Tobacco Manufacturers Over Health Care Costs
The suit is further evidence that South American countries are becoming tougher when it comes to regulating tobacco companies.
May 23, 2019 at 06:13 PM
3 minute read
Brazil's Office of the Attorney General filed suit against British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International, as well as their Brazilian subsidiaries, this week claiming the companies need to reimburse the country for health care costs associated with smoking-related diseases.
The suit shows South American countries are becoming more stringent in regulating tobacco companies.
The attorney general's office also claims in the suit, filed in Federal Court of Rio Grande do Sul, that the companies omitted and manipulated information about the harmfulness of cigarettes.
According to Brazil's National Cancer Institute, 90% of cases of lung cancer in the country are due to cigarette addiction. Each year, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 1.1 million Brazilians become sick because of causes attributed to smoking.
David Bressler, a prosecutor in the attorney general's office, said in a statement the multinational companies should be held liable because they have profited from Brazilians' use of cigarettes and their illnesses. The amount of damages the Brazilian government is seeking has not yet been calculated, according to the release. The attorney general's office said the action is not intended to prohibit the activity of cigarette manufacturers and does not impact Brazil's domestic tobacco production.
Filing the suit is further evidence that South American countries are becoming tougher when it comes to regulating tobacco companies. According to a regulatory index published last week by ECigIntelligence, South American countries have some of the most stringent regulations on e-cigarettes and vaping products. Brazil currently has a ban, upheld by the country's high court last year, on flavored tobacco products.
The lawsuit is similar to those filed by several states in the U.S. in the 1990s, which ended in 1998 with the Master Settlement Agreement. The agreement was between 46 states and the largest cigarette manufacturers, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Philip Morris Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., according to the Public Health Law Center. As of 2018, the companies have paid $162 billion to the participating states.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said provinces in Canada also filed a similar suit. The first cost-recovery lawsuit is slated to trial in November, according to a report in The Globe and Mail.
A spokesperson for Philip Morris did not respond to request for comment Thursday. A spokesperson for British American Tobacco said it is aware an action has been filed but declined to comment on the specifics of the case.
“At this stage, no legal proceedings have been served on any BAT group company and we are therefore unable to comment further at this time,” the spokesperson said in the email.
It was not clear who will be representing Philip Morris or British American Tobacco.
Matthew Myers, the president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in Washington, D.C., said in a statement the suit is a significant step in holding tobacco companies liable.
“Today's lawsuit marks a crucial step forward in holding tobacco companies responsible for their decades of advertising and marketing practices that hid the dangers of smoking from the public and purposely targeted young people,” Myers said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readElaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
PepsiCo's Legal Team Champions Diversity, Wellness, and Mentorship to Shape a Thriving Corporate Culture
Trending Stories
- 1UK Startup Wexler AI Announces $1.4M Preseed Funding
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-70
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Standing for Plaintiffs in Copyright Suit Over AI Training of ChatGPT
- 4LA Judge Anne Hwang Confirmed to the Federal Bench
- 5NY Court Leaders Ask for 10% Judiciary Budget Increase
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250