Search

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. The author presents several court cases regarding market control, including United States v. White Consolidated Industries Inc. and White Motor Corp., United States v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., RJI Corp., Sea-Land Service Inc., Walter Kiddle and Co. Inc., and United States Lines Inc. Also noted was the case, United States v. Paramount Pictures Inc., which involved the purchase of four movie theaters by Paramount's parent company, the American Broadcasting Company.

Do not discriminate against older persons. It seems like a simple mandate. However, the statute creating that mandate, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), has been anything but simple to implement. The details of the ADEA--who can bring a claim, and what kind of claim they can bring--have been extensively litigated since its inception. In 2016, the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, decided that an employer could discriminate against older applicants by having a policy of not hiring people who have been out of college for a certain number of years, or who have a certain number of years of work experience. This has created a rift within that circuit and is a departure from the governing agency's interpretation. This Comment explores the case law and legislative history leading up to the critical Eleventh Circuit case, Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which addresses the following question: can applicants for employment bring disparate impact claims under the ADEA? This Comment argues that the Supreme Court should hold that the ADEA does cover applicants for employment making disparate impact claims and that arbitrary agebased hiring policies are discriminatory. Regardless of any Supreme Court decision on the question, this Comment also suggests that Congress should amend the ADEA to include language that would allow applicants for employment to bring disparate impact claims, bringing the ADEA in line with Title VII. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of unfair competition. One of the developments describes the case of the United States v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which showed that billboard ads for cigarettes that display the government's cautionary warning in letters two inches high are not automatically in compliance with a consent order from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission requiring that letters must not be less than two inches high. Another development discusses the fact that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) does not fully preempt Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act since it does not immunize credit reporters from the kinds of unfair and deceptive practices that the FCRA does not address.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the United States v. Telephone and Telegraph Corp., the United States v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. and the Hartford Fire Insurance Co., and the United States v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. cases are cited among others.

The article discusses the legal aspects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in America in the wake of the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between 46 American states, five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, and four cigarette manufacturing firms including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. Legal restrictions on cigarette advertisements are addressed, along with tort liability claims and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration passed a rule revising compelled disclaimers on tobacco products pursuant to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The rule required that tobacco warnings include something new: all tobacco products now had to bear one of nine graphic images to accompany the text. Tobacco companies filed suit contesting the constitutionality of the rule, arguing that the government violated their right to free commercial speech by compelling disclosure of the graphic content. Yet First Amendment jurisprudence lacks a doctrinally consistent standard for reviewing such compelled disclosures. Courts' analyses typically depend on whether the regulation compels or restricts speech, how far that regulation extends, and why the government chose to regulate in the first place. This Note seeks to articulate a coherent standard--a disclosure-focused approach--for reviewing compelled commercial speech under the First Amendment. Under this disclosure-focused approach, courts would adopt a lenient standard of review for compelled disclosures of factual, uncontroversial information while reserving more exacting scrutiny for restricted speech or compelled ideological disclosures. This approach centers on the structure and content of the regulation rather than the governmental motive. Accordingly, the disclosure-focused approach aligns with the goal of commercial speech protection--namely, maximizing the information available to consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the constitutionality of American graphic-image cigarette warning labels and other commercial disclosure requirements as of November 2013. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling in the commercial speech-related case R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA is addressed, along with the marketplace of ideas theory and the First Amendment to the nation's Constitution. Deaths from cigarette smoking in the U.S. are examined.

The article focuses on judicial review of the case R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA by the U.S Supreme Court. Topics discussed include the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA), the Graphic Warning Rule enacted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that requires tobacco manufacturers to use graphic warning labels on cigarette packages, and the case Central Hudson Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission.

The article discusses the authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products as of August 2013, focusing on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's ruling in the case R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA which determined that packaging-related graphic image warnings violate freedom of speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and cigarette-related laws are assessed.

The article discusses the 2012 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) which deals with American constitutional law, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and compelled commercial speech in relation to cigarette packaging. The strict scrutiny judicial standard of review is mentioned, along with an examination of the government's interest in discouraging cigarette smoking.

The article discusses the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's implementation of several changes to cigarette warning labels as of July 2012, including information on the U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, lung cancer prevention, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's ruling on graphic label requirements in a case involving the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Company. Commercial speech and the First Amendment to the nation's Constitution are also examined.

Contemporary health care reformers, like those who promoted the failed Clinton era plan, face opposition from multiple corporate interests. However, scant literature has examined how relationships between corporations and other stakeholders, such as think tanks and advocacy groups, shape health care reform debate. We show how the 2 biggest US tobacco companies, Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, and their trade association coordinated in mobilizing ideologically diverse constituencies to help defeat the Clinton plan. Unwittingly perhaps, some reform supporters advanced the tobacco industry's public relations blitz, contributing to perceptions of public opposition to the plan. As the current reform debate unfolds, this case highlights the importance of funding transparency for interpreting the activities of think tanks, advocacy groups, and "grassroots" movements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present work was to understand why and how RJ Reynolds and other tobacco companies have marketed tobacco products to young adult social trendsetting consumers (termed ‘hipsters’) to recruit trendsetters and average consumers to smoke. METHODS: Analysis of tobacco industry documents and industry marketing materials. RESULTS: Since 1995, RJ Reynolds developed its marketing campaigns to better suit the lifestyle, image identity and attitudes of hip trendsetters (so-called ‘hipsters’), and Camel's brand identity actively shifted to more closely convey the hipster persona. Camel emphasised in-venue events such as promotional music tours to link the brand and smoking to activities and symbols appealing to hipsters and their emulating masses. CONCLUSIONS: To reach this targeted and socially valuable trend-setting population, public health advocates must tap into hipster psychology and expose to the targeted community the tobacco company's efforts to infiltrate the hipster community to turn hipsters into tobacco-using role models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines two case studies that illustrate how two different types of actors were involved in a cigarette smuggling-terror nexus. The first case examines R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company's alleged deliberate sales of its products in lraq in contravention of the UN embargo and U.S. law. R.J. Reynolds used criminal actors as suppliers and provided financial compensation to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a recognized terrorist organization, and Uday Hussein (Saddam Hussein's son) to facilitate this transport. The second case examines a Hezbollah cell operating out of Charlotte, North Carolina. The cell trafficked cigarettes from North Carolina to Michigan, reaping significant profits by exploiting the difference in cigarette tax rates between the two states. The two case studies revealed that terrorist financing occurs in the United States and as a result of the actions of a terrorist support cell and a U.S.-based company. In both cases, a legitimate commodity was used for illicit purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the role litigation may play in addressing the entrance of cigarette companies, such as Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, into the market of smokeless tobacco in the U.S. Particular focus is given on health effects and harm reduction of tobacco, legal issues raised by cigarette companies, and the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) which was signed in 1998.

The article discusses the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. versus Shewry case which focuses on the banning of cigarette advertising filed in California. It provides an overview on the Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act of 1998, the Tobacco Control Program and the Tobacco Education Media Campaign (TEMC). The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the First Amendment allows the government to use funds from taxes to preserve its policies. It summarizes the influence of TEMC on U.S. legislators.

Features the radio scripts from the files of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in the U.S. from 1948 to 1959. Promotion of its cigarette brands over the radio; Role of author Emily Post in marketing cigarettes; Radio hosts featured in the scripts.

This article is based on the 1998 testimony the author provided for In the Matter of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as an expert witness for the Federal Trade Commission. After providing an overview of the Joe Camel campaign and the Federal Trade Commission's investigation of it, the author considers consumer protection issues that provide a perspective for assessing Reynolds's acts and practices. He then focuses on an analysis of Reynolds' s competitive position in the cigarette marketplace and why that was likely to influence subsequent marketing strategy and the development of the Joe Camel campaign. The author next discusses, the campaign at some length before returning to an explicit assessment of the campaign and the types of criteria that might be adopted for this purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the ruling of the New Jersey Supreme Court on a product liability case filed against cigarette company R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Facts of the case; Reasons behind the ruling of the court; Arguments presented by the plaintiff and defendant.

Reports that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is considering the recommendation of its staff to sue R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. for enticing minors to smoke with its "Joe Camel" promotional campaign. Controversy over the legal issue of whether it is unfair to promote cigarettes to children too young to legally buy them; Description of the potential legal issues related to the advertising community; Need for the FTC to issue its complaint and hold trial to determine the factual question of whether the Joe Camel campaign actually targets minors.

Comments on talks in the U.S. about legislation to curtail tobacco advertising in light of growing tobacco use among teenagers. Increase in market share for R.J. Reynold's Camel brand cigarettes; Immense appeal of the brand mascot, Old Joe Camel, to teens; Advertising agency representatives' arguments against any imposition of unconstitutional restrictions on advertising.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus given to the regulation of unfair competition. One of the developments describes the findings by U.S. Federal Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge Montgomery K. Hyun that an advertisement from the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Inc. was an editorial advertisement, and as such, is protected by the First Amendment. Another development describes the case of Hu-Friedy Manufacturing Co. Inc. v. Peerless International Inc. This case shows that to prevail in a complaint that a trademark is being used to create a monopoly, the complainant must prove intent to monopolize, specific anticompetitive acts, and a dangerous probability of success in the relevant market.

The article recounts the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case R.J. Reynolds v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which deemed unconstitutional FDA regulations requiring similar graphic warnings depicting the health effects of smoking. The Court found that the mandated packaging violates cigarette companies' right to free speech. It was noted that the history of tobacco-industry deception needed an innovative strategy.