People v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
2011 IL App (1st) 101736
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Reynolds and others signed a master settlement agreement (MSA) in 1998 prohibiting youth targeting and the use of any Cartoon in tobacco advertising.
- The MSA defines Cartoon as, among other things, the attribution of unnatural or extrahuman abilities; Joe Camel is expressly included.
- The parties adopted a consent decree incorporating the MSA’s Cartoon ban and permitting civil penalties for violations; the court retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
- In 2006 Reynolds launched the Camel Farm promotional campaign with Rolling Stone advertising in its Fortieth Anniversary issue (Nov. 15, 2007).
- Rolling Stone published an editorial in the same issue featuring hand-drawn cartoons adjacent to Reynolds’ gatefold advertisement; Reynolds did not create those editorials.
- Illinois filed a motion for rule to show cause alleging Reynolds violated the Cartoon ban; the circuit court found the Rolling Stone editorial cartoons were not Reynolds’ responsibility and struck a $6.5 million punitive sanction; the case was remanded for determination of attorney fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Camel Farm Rolling Stone ad is a Cartoon under the MSA/Consent Decree | State contends ad depicts objects with unnatural abilities; targeted youth. | Reynolds argues no superhero-like powers; ejusdem generis noscitur a sociis apply; wording limits to specified examples. | Yes; Camel Farm ad is a Cartoon under the MSA/Consent Decree. |
| Whether Reynolds’ video and website images are Cartoons | All Camel Farm media must be treated as Cartoons. | Video/website lack comically exaggerated features; not a Cartoon. | No; video and website images are not Cartoons. |
| Whether Reynolds had an affirmative duty to inform Rolling Stone about the Cartoon ban | Rolling Stone used Cartoons near Reynolds’ ad; Reynolds should have warned publisher. | No duty to police third parties under the contract; Rolling Stone content independent. | No affirmative duty; Rolling Stone editorial not a violation by Reynolds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allied Asphalt Paving Co. v. Village of Hillside, 314 Ill. App. 3d 138 (2000) (contract interpretation; de novo review for contract terms)
- Department of Corrections v. Civil Service Comm’n, 187 Ill. App. 3d 304 (1989) (unambiguous contractual term meaning and interpretation)
- People v. Scharlau, 141 Ill. 2d 180 (1990) (consent decrees treated as contracts interpret under contract law)
- Bruce v. Atadero, 405 Ill. App. 3d 318 (2010) (abuse of discretion standard for sanctions in contempt)
- City of Mattoon v. Mentzer, 282 Ill. App. 3d 628 (1996) (civil contempt as coercive remedy; sanctions timing)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Fisher v. Philip Morris, Inc., 4 A.3d 749 (Pa. 2010) (court dicta on Camel Farm imagery and cartoons in similar cases)