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
|
Ohio Supreme Court Says RJR Violated the MSA with Matchbook Advertisments [01/05-4]
Excerpts from: Ohio high court: Tobacco settlement struck matchbook ads
The Associated Press [01/03/05]
Matchbooks given out at bars and stores cannot bear advertising for cigarettes or other tobacco products under the 1998 settlement involving 46 states and the major tobacco companies, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled.
The promotional matchbooks fit the definition of merchandise and are governed by the ban on tobacco marketing in the settlement, which included Ohio, according to the unanimous Dec. 30 ruling in Petro v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Ohio sued R.J. Reynolds over matchbooks advertising the company's cigarette brands, saying they were marketing merchandise prohibited in the settlement.Reynolds, a subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc., contended the matchbooks were not banned by the detailed agreement, which ended class-action lawsuits brought by the states.
Reynolds won in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, which held that free matchbooks were not merchandise. But the 10th Ohio District Court of Appeals in Columbus reversed that ruling, and the state Supreme Court agreed.Reynolds, whose brands include Camel, Winston, Salem and Doral, had ceased matchbook advertising during the case, company spokesman Mark Smith said. Competitors had stopped such advertising.
The states that signed the settlement agreement with the companies are supposed to get the $206 billion over 25 years, including $10 billion for Ohio. In addition, the tobacco companies promised not to market to children and teens.
| Home Web Page | Search This Site | Learn About ASH | Why Join ASH | Comment on This | Email This Page |