Opinion ID: 187362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Package onserts

Text: One of the vehicles for the corrective statements is a cigarette package onsert, which the district court ordered Defendants to affix to cigarette packaging, either on the outside of or within the outer cellophane wrapping around the package... in the same manner as certain Defendants, such as Philip Morris and Brown & Williamson, have utilized package onserts in the past. Philip Morris, 449 F.Supp.2d at 939. Defendants object that the onserts violate the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (Labeling Act), which provides that [n]o statement relating to smoking and health, other than the statement required by section 1333 of this title, shall be required on any cigarette package. 15 U.S.C. § 1334(a). The Labeling Act defines a package as a pack, box, carton, or container of any kind in which cigarettes are offered for sale, sold, or otherwise distributed to consumers. Id. § 1332(4). A package onsert is [a] communication affixed to but separate from an individual cigarette pack and/or carton purchased at retail by consumers, such as a miniature brochure included beneath the outer cellophane wrapping or glued to the outside of the cigarette packaging. Philip Morris, 449 F.Supp.2d at 948; see Schwab v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F.Supp.2d 992, 1084-85 (E.D.N.Y.2006) (defining onserts as pamphlets attached to the outside of cartons or packs of cigarettes), rev'd on other grounds by McLaughlin v. Am. Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215 (2d Cir.2008); United States v. Star Scientific, Inc., 205 F.Supp.2d 482, 484 (D.Md.2002) (defining onsert as a type of external package label). These definitions show that the corrective statements in an onsert are not statement[s] ... on [a] package, 15 U.S.C. § 1334(a), but rather statements in a brochure attached to or included with a package, and thus are not prohibited by the plain language of the Labeling Act. See Philip Morris, 449 F.Supp.2d at 928 n. 89. Congress could have used more expansive language to reach statements in onserts had it chosen to do so, but it chose only to preempt the requiring of alternative statements about smoking and health on any cigarette package. Moreover, the district court and the parties appear to have recognized the distinction between packages and onserts throughout the trial. See id. at 206 (Philip Morris has never told its customers on its cigarette packaging or in onserts that it agrees that smoking causes cancer and other diseases in smokers.), 288 (Philip Morris replaced the pre-existing package labels with onserts.), 424 ([Brown & Williamson] began a new test market ... using its redesigned packaging and onsert.... Star Scientific ... added an informational `onsert' attached to the package.); Trial Tr., Jan. 10, 2005 (Philip Morris senior vice president distinguishing between cigarette pack and onsert). We therefore conclude that the onsert remedy does not violate the Labeling Act.