In Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Service, Inc. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 316, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of pesticide manufacturers and a pest control adviser against claims brought by the plaintiffs who operated walnut orchards. The trial court held that the plaintiffs had stated claims that, in effect, challenged the adequacy of the labels and therefore were preempted by FIFRA. The trial court also held that the plaintiffs failed to produce triable issues of fact in support of their negligence, misrepresentation and fraud claims. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed on the basis that state law failure-to-warn claims are not preempted by FIFRA. In reversing the Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court extensively discussed Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. (1992) in which cigarette manufacturers asserted that state law failure-to-warn actions were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 (Pub. L. No. 89-92 (July 27, 1965) 79 Stat. 282, codified at 15 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. (the 1965 Cigarette Act)) and its successor, the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 (Pub.L. No. 91-222 (Apr. 1, 1970) 84 Stat. 87, amending 15 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. (the 1969 Cigarette Act)). ( Etcheverry, supra, 22 Cal. 4th at p. 323.) The Cipollone court held that the 1969 Cigarette Act, by its broad language (as opposed to the precise and narrow language of the 1965 Cigarette Act), barred not only statements, but "requirements" or "prohibitions" imposed under state law, and thus preempted common law failure-to-warn claims. ( Etcheverry, supra, 22 Cal. 4th at p. 324.) The 1969 Cigarette Act, however, did not preempt claims that relied solely on the manufacturers' testing or research practices or other actions not related to advertising or promotion, such as express warranty, intentional fraud and misrepresentation, or conspiracy. ( Etcheverry, supra, 22 Cal. 4th at p. 335.) "Section 5 of the 1965 Cigarette Act provided in part: '(a) No statement relating to smoking and health, other than the statement required by section 4 of this Act, shall be required on any cigarette package. (b) No statement relating to smoking and health shall be required in the advertising of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this Act.' (Pub.L. No. 89-92, 5 (July 27, 1965) 79 Stat. 282.) By contrast, section 5 of the 1969 Cigarette Act provides: '(b) No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarette the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this Act.' (Pub.L. No. 91-222, 5 (Apr. 1, 1970) 84 Stat. 88.)" ( Etcheverry, supra, 22 Cal. 4th at pp. 323-324.)