Economic Analysis of Allegations in Cigarette Litigations and the Impact of FTC Regulation

Abstract

In a number of recent multi-billion dollar cases brought against cigarette manufacturers, plaintiffs have in part alleged that the cigarette manufacturers (1) conspired not to compete on the basis of health claims or the introduction of potentially safer cigarettes since the 1950s, and (2) engaged in fraudulent advertising by making implied health claims in advertisements selling ‘low tar’/‘light’ cigarettes. In this type of litigation, defendants’ actions could be due to alleged illegal behaviour as asserted by plaintiffs, or be the result of market forces that may have nothing to do with allegedly inappropriate acts. We examine the economic evidence relating to these allegations, taking into account some of the major influences on cigarette company behaviour. In particular, our analyses show that much of the cigarette manufactures’ behaviour can be explained by Federal Trade Commission and related government actions, rather than conspiracy or fraudulent acts. We find the economic evidence is inconsistent with an effective conspiracy to suppress information on either smoking and health or the development and marketing of potentially safer cigarettes. Regarding ‘lower tar’ and ‘light’ cigarettes, the economic evidence indicates that the cigarette manufacturers responded to government and public health initiatives, and that disclosing more information on smoking compensation earlier than the cigarette companies did would not have had any significant impact on smoking behaviour.

Citation

Langenfeld, J. and Noffsker, B. (2012), "Economic Analysis of Allegations in Cigarette Litigations and the Impact of FTC Regulation", Zerbe, R.O. and Kirkwood, J.B. (Ed.) Research in Law and Economics (Research in Law and Economics, Vol. 25), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 129-233. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0193-5895(2012)0000025010