Before the Republic of the Philippines Commission on Human Rights Statement of Sharon Y. Eubanks U.S. Federal Tobacco Litigation: United States v. Philip Morris, et al. Preliminary Matters My name is Sharon Y. Eubanks. I have been practicing law in the United States since 1980. I was an attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice for over 22 years and was lead counsel for the United States in the federal tobacco litigation, United States v. Philip Morris, et al., which was tried in 2004 and 2005 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, with the Honorable Gladys Kessler presiding. The case was finally concluded earlier this year. A copy of my current resume and a biographical statement are attached. My professional expertise is in the area of U.S. federal tobacco litigation and how the government was able to establish the tobacco companies’ liability for the health effects of smoking. The United States’ government’s case was based on proven allegations against the tobacco industry demonstrating fraud and deception. As discussed herein, there are similarities in the corporate behavior of the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry. I will address some of the parallels between United States v. Philip Morris, et al. and some of the current climate litigation filed in courts in the United States. History Tobacco litigation took the long road to success, alleging different theories, over the years, to find liability. Specifically, during the 1950s, scientific reports linking cigarettes to cancer emerged. The companies uniformly denied that there was any “proven” link to disease and smoking, even though their own internal documents at the time established a causal link between diseases, like lung cancer, and smoking. As a result of the scientific issues raised, individual plaintiffs began suing cigarette manufacturers, most frequently alleging that they developed cancer because of smoking. These cases often relied upon product liability theories: 1. Negligent manufacture: The tobacco companies failed to act with a duty of reasonable care in producing and marketing cigarettes; 2. Product liability: The tobacco companies made and marketed a product that was unfit for use and inherently dangerous when used as intended; 3. Negligent advertising: The tobacco companies failed to warn consumers of the risks of smoking cigarettes;