|
''Altria Group v. Good'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state law prohibiting deceptive tobacco advertising was not preempted by a federal law regulating cigarette advertising. == Background == The lawsuit claimed that Altria's marketing of "light" and "low tar" cigarettes constituted fraudulent misrepresentations under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA) 〔Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 5, §207 (Supp. 2008). The MUTPA provides, as relevant, that “()nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are declared unlawful.” §207. In construing that section, courts are to “be guided by the interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts to Section 45(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 United States Code 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended.” §207(1).〕 because it deceived smokers into thinking the products are safer than regular cigarettes. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Altria, finding the state-law claim pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, 15 U.S.C. §1334(b) (Federal Labeling Act). The First Circuit reversed, holding that the Labeling Act neither expressly nor impliedly pre-empted respondents’ fraud claim. Does federal preemption of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act hinge on the express or implied nature of the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations? 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Altria Group, Inc. v. Good」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|