Tobacco lawsuits may attract media interest but they’re not the best way to achieve tobacco control aims.
For one thing, litigation is costly, inefficient and often wasteful:
Smokers in the US have filed more than 7,500 cases against tobacco companies in the past fifty years or so. They’ve won in trial in only 29 cases.
17 of those 29 cases involved Philip Morris USA; all but 4 of the verdicts were reversed on appeal or are still on appeal.
Some thirty governments have sued Philip Morris USA in the United States. The US courts have dismissed almost all of those cases, and no compensation or other relief has been awarded.
In cases filed outside the US against Philip Morris International and other tobacco companies, plaintiffs have also had little success (for details see “Tobacco lawsuits outside the US” on the left).
What’s more, litigation is unnecessary:
We’re very willing to work with governments and the public health community to define effective tobacco regulation.
We actively look for opportunities to help improve the way our industry is regulated.
Our recommendations often go well beyond current regulation, as our comments on the EU’s tobacco product directive, for instance, demonstrate.
The best way to achieve tobacco control aims is not litigation, but regulation. Good policy is about making sure the future works, rather than arguing about the past.
That’s why we believe that developing strong and effective regulation for the tobacco industry makes more sense – for all parties – than expensive, time-consuming and often ineffective court action.
