Mainers sue over ‘light’ cigarettes

BANGOR – Three Penobscot County residents have filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the makers of Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights.

The lawsuit is not seeking damages for personal injuries or health problems caused from cigarette smoking. Instead, it alleges that they were hoodwinked into thinking that “light” cigarettes contained less tar and nicotine. The smokers are seeking compensatory, punitive and other damages.

Bangor attorney Samuel W. Lanham Jr. filed the lawsuit earlier this month on behalf of Lori A. Spellman of Levant, Stephanie Good and Allain L. Thibodeau, both of Bangor. According to court documents, each smoked Marlboro Lights for 15 years or more.

Attorneys for the cigarette makers have not yet filed an answer to the lawsuit.

Spellman has smoked between one and 11/2 packages of Marlboro Lights per day; Good has smoked one pack every two to three days; and Thibodeau has smoked an average of 10 packs a week, according to court documents.

The lawsuit alleges that Philip Morris, USA Inc. and its parent company, Altria Group Inc., used unfair and deceptive practices to market the cigarettes and induce smokers to continue smoking even though the manufacturers knew their products were not lower in tar or nicotine than regular cigarettes.

The lawsuit also claims that the cigarette makers’ marketing practices violated Maine’s Unfair Trade Practices Law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

Lanham’s complaint is the first of its kind filed in federal court in Maine, but one of hundreds filed in state and federal courts around the country. An Illinois court two years ago handed down a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris after finding the company guilty of fraud.

Phillip Morris introduced Marlboro Lights in 1971 and Altria began marketing Cambridge Lights 15 years later. The packages for both brands stated that they contained “lowered tar and nicotine,” according to the complaint. That language was removed in 2003 after the verdict in Illinois.

The companies based their claims on tests conducted by the Federal Trade Commission, an agency charged with protecting consumers from misleading or fraudulent advertising. To measure the tar and nicotine levels, the FTC used machines that drew one carefully calibrated puff every minute.

The primary design difference between light cigarettes and their regular counterparts is the increased ventilation allowed by the strategically placed rings of ventilation holes in the filter of each cigarette, according to court documents.

The complaint alleges that the companies knew that smokers compensated for the restrictive filters by covering the holes with their fingers or by taking more and deeper drags in order to receive 100 percent of the tar and nicotine that would be received from regular cigarettes. The lawsuit further claims that the smoke produced by Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights causes more genetic and chromosomal damage than the smoke of regular cigarettes due to the increased ventilation.

Shortly after its introduction 34 years go, Marlboro Lights became the most popular cigarette brand in the country, and “light” cigarettes came to dominate the market, according to an article published last year about the Illinois case in Chicago Lawyer magazine. Light cigarettes account for almost 89 percent of the cigarette market today.

It could be several years before the Maine case goes to trial. It most likely would be combined with similar lawsuits filed in other federal courts around the country, according to Lanham.

An appeal of the $10.1 billion-decision in Illinois is pending before the Illinois Supreme Court. Attorneys for cigarette manufacturers have said that they will appeal a loss in the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lanham said Sunday he would pursue his clients’ case no matter the outcome of the Illinois appeal.