Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed certification of a consumer class action alleging that Philip Morris deceptively marketed Marlboro Lights as delivering lowered tar and nicotine under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A. The court held that purchasers could establish similar economic injury based on the alleged misrepresentation without individualized proof of smoking behavior or reliance. It also discussed benefit-of-the-bargain damages and the availability of statutory damages if actual damages could not be proven.

Holdings

1. The matter was properly before an appellate panel because the single justice appropriately certified the correctness of her ruling to a panel, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review.
2. The class was properly certified because the alleged deceptive marketing arose from a common course of conduct, presented common questions concerning the representations and omissions, and allegedly caused similar economic injury to numerous similarly situated purchasers.
3. The purchase of a product intentionally falsely represented may, by itself, constitute an ascertainable injury under G. L. c. 93A; individualized proof of reliance, intent to deceive, physical harm, or each purchaser's smoking behavior is not required to establish the alleged deceptive injury.
4. Advertising need not be wholly false to be deceptive under G. L. c. 93A; a literal truth, half-truth, omission, or overall misleading impression may support a deception claim.
5. Benefit-of-the-bargain damages, measured by the difference between the value paid and the true market value of the product received, would be an appropriate measure if proved with reasonable certainty.
6. If the plaintiffs prove a violation of G. L. c. 93A but cannot establish actual damages, they may recover statutory damages of at least $25 under G. L. c. 93A, § 9(3), because the deceptive conduct allegedly invaded a legally protected interest and caused compensable statutory injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Appeals Court single justice's decertification order was properly before an appellate panel for review.
2. Whether a class action could be certified under G. L. c. 93A, § 9(2), where the alleged deception consisted of marketing Marlboro Lights as delivering lowered tar and nicotine.
3. Whether purchase of a product intentionally represented in a deceptive manner can constitute an ascertainable injury under G. L. c. 93A without individualized proof of reliance, smoking behavior, physical harm, or actual economic loss.
4. Whether benefit-of-the-bargain damages measured by the difference between the value paid and the value received could be used if proved with reasonable certainty.
5. Whether class members could receive statutory minimum damages if actual damages could not be proved.

Disposition

affirmed