A controversial Camel advertising campaign in Rolling Stone during 2007 did not lead to a significant financial or legal hit for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
The magazine ran four pages of Camel cigarette ads as bookends to five pages of editorial content about independent, "or indie," rock music. The ads promoted a now-defunct Camel website — TheFarmRocks.com — aimed at adult consumers.
Reynolds said in a quarterly regulatory filing this week that eight of the nine states that sued over the Camel Farm ads did not gain approval for the punitive sanctions they sought related to the landmark 1998 Master Settlement Agreement. The agreement does not permit cartoon images to be associated with tobacco advertising.
The states — California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington — sued in December 2007.
Tom Corbett, the attorney general for Pennsylvania, said at that time his lawsuit was "part of what we hope becomes a nationwide legal action seeking more than $100 million in sanctions against R.J. Reynolds for violating the cartoon ban."
The attorneys general requested fines of $100 for each magazine distributed within their states' borders, as well as $100 combined for each visit to the Camel website for indie rock.
The company won three of the lawsuits, three were settled before trial for $150,000 each in attorney fees, and two lower-court decisions against Reynolds were reversed by appellate courts. A ruling is pending in the ninth state.
David Howard, a spokesman for Reynolds, said the company admitted no wrongdoing when agreeing to the settlements. He said Reynolds chose not to spend time or resources "to defend a program that ended."
What drew the lawsuits was the editorial content on the "Indie Rock Universe" spread having a cartoon look. The attorneys general said they consider the pullout as one presentation rather than separate advertising and editorial content.
Reynolds argued that it had no control over the magazine's editorial content.
The day after the filing of the lawsuits, Reynolds voluntarily stopped promotions for the campaign.
The lawsuits involve two claims. One focused on the placement of the Camel ads in relation to the magazine's editorial content containing the cartoon images. The second claim was the ad violated the consent decree of the MSA.
Reynolds said it did not believe the advertisement was in violation of the agreement. The company also said it was disappointed in the magazine's presentation of the editorial content for the pullout, particularly because its advertising personnel approached Reynolds about sponsoring the pullout.
In the Pennsylvania case, the lower court ruled against Reynolds. It said it should pay for the creation of a single-page youth-smoking prevention ad in Rolling Stone issues in Pennsylvania within a year, or pay a penalty of $302,000. An appellate court reversed both rulings.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement