Cipollone v. Liggett Group

In Cipollone v. Liggett Group (505 U.S. 504 [1992]), the smoker's allegations with respect to fraudulent misrepresentation claims were allegations that "respondents had willfully, 'through their advertising, attempted to neutralize the federally mandated warning' labels" and with respect to the fraudulent concealment claims alleged that the defendant cigarette companies "possessed, but had 'ignored and failed to act upon' medical, and scientific data indicating that 'cigarettes were hazardous to the health of consumers'." (Id. at 510.) In determining what claims could be tried as State-based common-law damage claims after 1969 and which could not, the plurality began with the language of section 5 (b) of the Act (15 USC 1334 [b]) and used it as a grid against which to test each of the individual claims. It appeared that the plurality intended to preempt those claims that met each and every one of the criteria for preemption enumerated in this provision and deny preemption to those claims that did not satisfy each and every criteria. In so doing, the plurality asked "whether the legal duty that is the predicate of the common-law damages action constitutes a 'requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health ... imposed under State law with respect to ... advertising or promotion.' " (Cipollone, supra, 505 US, at 523 .) However, in analyzing the intentional fraud claims, the plurality deviated considerably from that strategy. First, it determined that fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact and concealment of a material fact were both predicated on the State law duty not to make false statements of material facts or conceal such facts. Next, the plurality determined that neither of these claims are predicated on a duty based upon smoking and health. According to the plurality both of these intentional fraud claims are based on the more general obligation, the "duty not to deceive." (Cipollone, supra, 505 US, at 529.)