A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization
Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions
| Home | Search | About ASH | Why Join | Comment | Email page |
|
Action on Smoking and Health
A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions
|
RJR Settles CA Lawsuit and Will Limit Magazine Ads Targeting Teens [12/23-2]
Excerpts from: RJR settles lawsuit with California attorney general, setting teen ad limits
The Herald Sun [12/22/04]
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. on Wednesday agreed to limit tobacco advertising in magazines that appeal to teens, settling a lawsuit by California's attorney general.
RJR also will pay $11.4 million in civil penalties and $5.9 million for legal costs.
The agreement, approved by San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prager, ended a long battle over whether RJR, a unit of Reynolds American Inc., violated terms of a 1998 settlement by pitching cigarettes to California teens through advertisements in magazines aimed at young readers.
RJR will avoid advertising in magazines with at least 15 percent teen readership, with limited exceptions, Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office said in a press release. The settlement also prohibits RJR from "skewing the advertising for any of its brands to appeal to youths," Lockyer's office said.
In its suit, California asked that RJR stop advertising in magazines such as Rolling Stone, Sports Illustrated, Hot Rod and Allure.
The settlement applies to all RJR brands, including Camel, Winston, Salem, and Doral. It also covers Kool, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall and other brands acquired this year in a merger with Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
Lockyer filed suit in March 2001. California's 4th District Court of Appeals agreed with a San Diego court's ruling that RJR violated the 1998 settlement, reached with 46 states, that barred tobacco companies from taking "any action, directly or indirectly, to target youth."
But the appellate court reversed a $20 million fine against the company, ruling that the amount was based on the company's national print advertising budget rather than the amount spent in California.
| Home Web Page | Search This Site | Learn About ASH | Why Join ASH | Comment on This | Email This Page |