Implications of the Federal Court Order banning the terms “light” and “mild”: What difference could it make?

Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler found that the major American tobacco companies violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, defrauding the public by deceptively marketing “light” cigarettes. Judge Kessler's ruling prohibits the defendant tobacco companies from implying health benefits through using misleading terms like “light,” “mild,” or “low-tar,” or through other indirect means. This ruling could be interpreted narrowly simply as prohibiting certain words, or it could be interpreted broadly to prohibit implying health benefits by any other means, including color, numbers, or images. It is important to include indirect communications, as tobacco companies easily circumvent narrow advertising bans, as has been seen in European advertising following the EU ban on the use of such terms and as evidenced in internal tobacco industry documents. A narrow interpretation would be inconsistent with the Court's comprehensive factual findings of fraudulent intent by the industry. With a broad interpretation of the Order, including existing brands, line extensions, and new tobacco products such as Potential Reduced Exposure Products that are marketed as “cigarettes,” Judge Kessler's Order could make a substantial contribution to protecting health.