Tobacco firms lose civil lawsuit

[Guest guest]

The industry must take action to prevent future fraud

A US federal judge has found a number of leading tobacco firms guilty

of conspiring to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking.

Firms such as Philip Morris and British American Tobacco were ruled

to have violated racketeering laws in a government lawsuit launched

in 1999.

 

In her ruling, Judge Gladys Kessler said it was clear that " smoking

causes disease, suffering, and death " .

 

But the firms will not be fined or forced to fund anti-smoking

programs.

 

However, they will be required to take action to prevent future

fraud.

 

" Despite internal recognition of this fact, defendants have publicly

denied, distorted, and minimized the hazards of smoking for decades, "

the court ruling stated.

 

Those found liable were Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Brown &

Williamson, British American Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco.

 

This finding undermines the industry's public relations campaign

that they are responsible corporate citizens

 

The judgment comes nearly a decade after tobacco firms agreed to pay

$246bn to US states to cover the healthcare costs of those struck

down by smoking-related illnesses.

 

The companies concerned denied accusations of fraud and conspiracy,

originally brought by the Clinton administration.

 

But during the trial, the court was told that the firms had engaged

in a " gentleman's agreement " whereby they would not compete to

portray each other's brand as more or less harmful to smokers.

 

This, prosecutors claimed, ensured that the firms did not publicly

have to address the harm caused by smoking.

 

Anti-tobacco campaigners hailed the outcome as a major victory.

 

" That means from this day forward, the tobacco company defendants are

now adjudicated racketeers, " said Edward Sweda, a lawyer with the

Tobacco Accountability Project at Northeastern University.

 

" This finding undermines the industry's public relations campaign,

really since the master settlement agreement in 1998, that they are

responsible corporate citizens. "

 

But analysts said that the outcome was unlikely to have a major

financial impact on the firms' businesses.

 

" There wasn't a lot of financial risk in this decision anyway, " said

Charles Norton, from investment firm Mutual Advisors.

 

" I don't think the financial penalty will be that big and it will be

appealed. "