15 U.S.C. § 1334

Preemption

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Additional statements

Except to the extent the Secretary requires additional or different statements on any cigarette package by a regulation, by an order, by a standard, by an authorization to market a product, or by a condition of marketing a product, pursuant to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (and the amendments made by that Act), or as required under section 387c(a)(2) of title 21 or section 387t(a) of title 21, no statement relating to smoking and health, other than the statement required by section 1333 of this title, shall be required on any cigarette package.

(b) State regulations

No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.

Notwithstanding subsection (b), a State or locality may enact statutes and promulgate regulations, based on smoking and health, that take effect after the effective date of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, imposing specific bans or restrictions on the time, place, and manner, but not content, of the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes.

(Pub. L. 89–92, § 5, July 27, 1965, 79 Stat. 283; Pub. L. 91–222, § 2, Apr. 1, 1970, 84 Stat. 88; Pub. L. 111–31, div. A, title II, §§ 202(a), 203, June 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1845, 1846.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is div. A of Pub. L. 111–31, June 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1776. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2009 Amendment note set out under section 301 of Title 21, Food and Drugs, and Tables.

The effective date of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, referred to in subsec. (c), probably means the date of enactment of Pub. L. 111–31, which was approved June 22, 2009.

Amendments

2009—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–31, § 202(a), substituted “Except to the extent the Secretary requires additional or different statements on any cigarette package by a regulation, by an order, by a standard, by an authorization to market a product, or by a condition of marketing a product, pursuant to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (and the amendments made by that Act), or as required under section 387c(a)(2) of title 21 or section 387t(a) of title 21, no” for “No”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111–31, § 203, added subsec. (c).

1970—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 91–222 substituted provision that no requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health should be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes which packages are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this chapter for provision that no statement relating to smoking and health should be required in the advertising of any cigarettes which packages are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.

Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 91–222 struck out subsecs. (c) and (d) relating to the authority of the Federal Trade Commission with respect to unfair or deceptive advertising acts or practices, and reports to Congress by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Federal Trade Commission. See sections 1336 and 1337 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1970 Amendment

Pub. L. 91–222, § 3, Apr. 1, 1970, 84 Stat. 90, provided in part that: “Section 5 of the amendment made by this Act [amending this section] shall take effect as of July 1, 1969.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 229 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001). · cites it 8× “" 15 U. S. C. § 1334 . The FCLAA's pre-emption provision does not cover smokeless tobacco or cigars.”

Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008). · cites it 7× “Although fidelity to these purposes does not demand the pre-emption of state fraud rules, the principal question here is whether that result is nevertheless required by 15 U. S. C. §1334 (b), which provides that “[n]o requirement or prohibition based on smok ing and health shall…”

Theresa Graham v. R.J Reynolds Tobacco Co., 857 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “at 88 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 1334 (b)). Congress again amended the Labeling Act by passing the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act, Pub.”

Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000). · cites it 4× “88 (codified at 15 U. S. C. § 1334 (a)). Moreover, it expressly forbade the FTC from taking any action on its pending rule until July 1, 1971, and it required the FTC, if it decided to proceed with its rule thereafter, to notify Congress at least six months in advance of the…”

Bullock v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 775 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “” 11 ( 15 U.S.C. § 1334 (b).) A majority of the justices in Cipollone held that in light of the express preemption provisions enacted in 1965 and 1969, the scope of preemption under each provision is limited to claims expressly preempted under each provision.”

Good v. Altria Grp., Inc., 501 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007). · cites it 9× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1334 (b) (1998). Because we find that the claims are not preempted, and because Philip Morris’s alternative arguments for affirmance are also unavailing, we vacate the decision of the district court and remand for further proceedings.”

Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008). · cites it 2× “2d 407 (1992), held common-law actions pre-empted by a provision of the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, 15 U.S.C. § 1334 (b), which said that "[n]o requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the…”

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Phil J. Marotta, etc., 214 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 2017). · cites it 5× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1334 (b) (2012) (emphasis added).”

Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005). · cites it 2× “" 15 U.S.C. § 1334 (b); Cipollone, 505 U.S.”

Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992). · cites it 2× “In my view, the modified language of § 5(b), 15 U. S. C. § 1334 (b) ("No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with…”

People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 124 P.3d 408 (Cal. 2005). · cites it 3× “( 15 U.S.C. § 1334 (b).) The third is whether the *713 $14,826,200 fine assessed against defendant violates state or federal constitutional provisions barring excessive fines.”

Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 593 F. Supp. 1146 (D.N.J. 1984). · cites it 8× “15 U.S.C. § 1334 . Plaintiff concedes that this section prohibits states from regulating cigarette packaging, and cigarette advertising by, for example, requiring a warning other than that set forth in the Act.”

Show all 229 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.