Page 11 - CLT072720

NEWS JULY 27, 2020 ¦ 11

Experts: Graphic Health Warnings
Could Impact Cigarette Litigation

By Robert Storace

As Connecticut Attorney General William
Tong joined a coalition of 25 attorneys gener-
al July 17 in filing an amicus brief supporting
federal regulations requiring graphic image warning
labels on cigarettes packages, legal experts weighed
in on how such warnings could affect litigators.
Their consensus: It would be tougher to win litiga-
tion against Big Tobacco if these companies provided
graphic warnings about the dangers of smoking.
But it still wouldn’t be simple: Experts say jurors
are often unpredictable, and could unleash surprise
verdicts. Plus, geography would be a factor. For
instance, jurors might view lawyers and smokers
differently in various part of the country, including Shutterstock
places like North Carolina, a big tobacco state.
“It would change the nature of the lawsuit to a cer- to come up with the warning labels, but R. J. Reyn-
tain extent,” said Quinnipiac University School of olds argued the move was unfair and inappropriate.
Law professor Bill Dunlap. “For attorneys represent- Natasha Webster, Reynolds spokesperson, didn’t
ing smokers, I’d say it would be harder for a plaintiff respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
lawyer to show that the tobacco But observers suggest that
companies had not provided suf- while the measure might hurt cig-
ficient warning. It will just make arette marketing, it could benefit
their case that much harder.” tobacco companies in the court-
Another factor: Dunlap said The consensus: It would be room—but only up to a point.
tougher to win litigation
that if the U.S. Congress is cor- against Big Tobacco if these Leslie Levin, a professor of law
rect, and the graphic images do companies provided graphic at the University of Connecticut
reduce smoking, “then there will warnings about the dangers School of Law, said, “It could be
be fewer cases of cancer and less harder to sue, depending on who
people will be smoking, thus few- of smoking. the plaintiff is. Sometimes, people

er lawsuits.” are alleging second-hand smoke,
in which case I’m not sure warn-
ings will make a lot of difference.”
Big Tobacco pushes back
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. sued the Food and While the feeling among experts is that plain-
Drug Administration in the U.S. District Court tiff attorneys might need a new strategy if they
for the Eastern District of Texas, arguing the U.S. represent someone who sues after using a tobacco
Congress doesn’t have the authority to decide what product with a graphic warning label, both Dunlap
graphics should be on cigarette packages. and Levin said it could also come down to juror
The FDA and the Department of Health and Hu- attitudes.
man Services had given the U.S. Congress authority
¦ Continued on PAGE 12

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune