Ed Cone points to an article at Bloomberg about the Supreme Court's decision to allow smokers to sue tobacco companies over the marketing of "light" cigarettes.  Ed also points to a page at Reynolds' website that is dedicated to litigation.

According to the article some analysts were surprised at the decision, having predicted that the tobacco companies would prevail, but they still don't consider the ruling much of a game-changer.  On the other hand lots of anti-tobacco folks are thrilled (see excerpt below).  I have a feeling that the people most thrilled are the lawyers on both sides; they'll be able to pay for their kids', grandkids' and great-grandkids' Harvard educations with the fees from these lawsuits:

The ruling surprised some industry analysts, including
Morgan Stanley’s David Adelman, who had predicted an industry
victory before the high court heard arguments. Still, Adelman
said cigarette companies retained “very, very valid and
effective defenses” to the suits.

No Turning Point

“I don’t think this is a turning point for the plaintiffs
in either lights litigation or tobacco litigation generally,”
said Adelman.

Anti-tobacco advocates hailed the ruling. “It’s a very
historic day in the field of tobacco litigation,” said Ed Sweda,
an attorney at the Tobacco Products Liability Project at
Northeastern University School of Law in Boston. “There was this
dark cloud hanging over all these cases up until today.”

Cigarette companies face about 40 similar suits, Sweda said.
Smoking foes say Philip Morris and other cigarette makers have
long known that smokers compensate for reduced tar and nicotine
levels by inhaling more deeply and frequently.

An Illinois light-cigarette suit at one point threatened
Philip Morris, the nation’s largest tobacco company, with a $10.1
billion award before it was overturned.

The suit before the justices seeks to recover the money
Maine smokers spent on Philip Morris’s Marlboro Lights and
Cambridge Lights through November 2002, plus punitive damages. A
federal appeals court in Boston had said the suit, which invoked
a Maine unfair trade practices law, could go forward…

Philip Morris also argued that lawsuits would interfere with
the Federal Trade Commission’s oversight of cigarette testing and
its policy of encouraging companies to market low-tar brands.

Stevens rejected that argument, saying the FTC “has no
longstanding policy authorizing collateral representations”
based on the testing method used by cigarette makers. Thomas
didn’t address that question in his dissent.

The FTC last month withdrew its endorsement of the four-
decade-old test that lets cigarette makers claim some brands
contain less tar and nicotine. The test method is “confusing or
misleading to consumers,” the FTC said in a statement then.

“For consumers it’s a major victory,” Jonathan Leibowitz,
a Democratic FTC commissioner said of today’s high court
decision. The ruling reaffirms that “states are full partners”
with the FTC in protecting consumers against deception, he said.

The case is Altria v. Good, 07-562.