Learning Objectives: Have a basic understanding of the issues and outcomes of recent formal MSA enforcement actions. Grasp the necessarily incremental nature of MSA enforcement litigation. Appreciate the role of MSA enforcement as part of an overall tobacco control agenda.
Abstract: Although the MSA was heavily criticized when it was signed in November 1998 as not going far enough to change tobacco industry marketing, advertising, and promotional practices, some states have made a concerted effort over the past four years to enforce the public health provisions of the MSA. In 2001 four states sued R.J. Reynolds for violating the MSA’’s limits on advertising brand name sponsorships by posting Winston NASCAR signs year-round at auto race tracks. By year’’s end California and Arizona had won their cases, but a judge in New York had ruled for Reynolds. All three cases were appealed to higher courts. Also in 2001, Ohio sued Reynolds for violating the MSA’’s ban on brand name merchandise by distributing matchbooks with Camel and Winston on them, and California sued Reynolds for targeting youth by advertising in national magazines with large youth audiences.
This presentation will examine these recent formal MSA enforcement actions and try to assess the importance of such litigation in furthering the public health goals of the MSA, in particular, and the overall tobacco control agenda, in general. The presenters will ask and attempt to answer the question: Have the states' efforts to make the tobacco companies ““toe the lines”” the MSA draws for them substantially changed tobacco marketing, advertising, and promotional practices?
Back to Making the Tobacco Industry "Toe the Lines" Drawn by the MSA: Lessons Learned From MSA Enforcement Litigation
Back to Public Policy and Advocacy Strategies
Back to The 2002 National Conference on Tobacco or Health