Marrone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 110 Ohio St. 3d 5, 2006-Ohio-3790

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that a plaintiff seeking class-action relief under Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act must show that the defendant's alleged conduct was substantially similar to an act or practice previously declared deceptive by an Attorney General rule or publicly available court decision. The court concluded that the prior decisions and generic administrative rule relied upon by the plaintiffs did not provide Philip Morris with sufficient notice concerning its marketing and testing of light cigarettes. The court reversed the court of appeals' judgment certifying the class under R.C. 1345.09(B).

Holdings

1. A consumer may qualify for class-action certification under Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act only if the defendant's alleged violation is substantially similar to an act or practice previously declared deceptive or unconscionable by an applicable Attorney General rule or publicly available court decision.
2. The plaintiffs failed to identify a prior rule or court decision substantially similar to the alleged marketing, testing, and design conduct involving light cigarettes; therefore, they did not satisfy R.C. 1345.09(B).

Questions Presented

1. What degree of similarity must exist between a defendant's alleged conduct and a prior rule or court decision declaring conduct deceptive or unconscionable for class-action relief under R.C. 1345.09(B)?
2. Did the prior court decisions and Ohio Administrative Code provision identified by the plaintiffs provide sufficient prior notice that Philip Morris's alleged conduct violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act?

Disposition

reversed