Entire Tobacco Industry Must Take Notice At Three Judge Panel Ruling In MInnesota

Implications: This should keep defense lawyers busy not only for defendant, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., but Altria, (Philip Morris) and Brown & Williamson - as it opens the door to similar cases against them, pending in Minnesota. The case will be watched, and may even have (limited) impact, on similar cases in nearly half the sates.

Analysis: The ruling rejected the argument that the cigarette warning label,  required by federal law, preempted a state lawsuit.

The court took a broad approach, explaining that the plaintiffs claim that   defendant violated a general duty not to deceive, as protected by state consumer fraud statutes, rather than any specific fraud related to the warning about smoking.

 While consumer protection statutes differ from state to state, this ruling does have significance for similar cases in approximately 20 other states. While not binding outside of Minnesota, the state court's legal theory for not applying federal preemption may be persuasive (and heavily cited by plaintiffs) in other states.  Earlier this year, a Maine court issued a similar decision.

Just like in the Schwab case in New York, the suit may include claims regarding not only "Light" cigarettes, but also  "lowered tar," filtered cigarettes.