4. State consumer protection statutes: The tobacco companies violated individual state consumer protection statutes, most of which prohibited unfair and deceptive business practices. These lawsuits led to vigorous defenses, in each instance, by the tobacco industry. The tobacco companies fought each lawsuit, with scorched earth tactics, refusing to resolve or settle out of court any case filed against them. In so doing, the tobacco companies relied upon several theories: 1. They knowingly falsely alleged that tobacco smoking was not harmful to smokers, stating that there was no proof of harm; 2. They alleged that smokers’ cancer or disease was caused by other factors and not by tobacco smoking; 3. They argued that smokers themselves assumed the risk of cancer and disease when they decided to smoke, in that they had been warned, yet chose to smoke regardless.1 In all of these early suits, the tobacco industry prevailed. It was only in the 1980s that the tide began to turn. In the 1980s, a new wave of tobacco litigation emerged. In the case of Cipollone v. Ligget, the plaintiff, Rose Cipollone, and her family alleged that cigarette manufacturers knew—but failed to warn consumers—that smoking cigarettes caused lung cancer and that cigarettes were addictive. Other plaintiffs adopted this theory, claiming that cigarette companies knew that cigarettes were addictive and caused cancer, and that the companies actively concealed this information from smokers. In defending these lawsuits, the tobacco companies argued that smokers had knowingly assumed the risks of cancer and that other health problems existed when they began smoking. The companies also relied upon a theory of preemption, arguing, largely successfully, that various state consumer protection laws were preempted by federal laws specifically governing advertising and thus superseding state laws regarding the same thing. In most cases, this preemption completely precluded a plaintiff from suing under the state law. During the 1990s, plaintiffs began to have limited success in tobacco lawsuits, in part because some internal cigarette company documents became available through the litigation discovery process. In particular, documents demonstrating that the companies were aware of the addictive nature of cigarettes, yet they concealed this information from consumers, were among the documents released in discovery. 1 The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-92) required that the warning, Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health,” be located in a conspicuous place on every cigarette package. In 1969, Congress enacted the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, which provided that each cigarette package include the label, “Warning: The Surgeon General has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health.” By 1984, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984, which required four specific health warnings on all cigarette packages and advertisements, including that “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer” and that “Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.” 2