Josephine Linker Hart

Summary

Josephine Linker Hart Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (2015)

In my view, the majority is wrong to approve of a class that cannot reasonably be ascertained, and is so broad as to include perhaps thousands of members who have sustained no actual damages and are thus not entitled to pursue a cause of action under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. I am mindful that this cause of action is drrected against the manufacturer of cigarettes, a highly unpopular consumer good. However, this case will stand as precedent for all consumer goods. "Light" is the term that has been demonized today because it is associated with cigarettes.
Source: Wikisource

Josephine Linker Hart Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (2015)

Philip Morris argues that injury could be shown "only if the purchasers did not receive less tar and nicotine and they would have spent less money on cigarettes in the absence of the alleged misrepresentation. Actual damages would depend on each class member's smoking habits, beliefs, and purchasing history. Obviously, a class member has suffered no "actual damages" if he or she bought Lights because of the taste, peer pressure, or for reasons other than he or she believed that it was a "healthier" cigarette.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature