Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Cipollone v. Liggett Group is a landmark Supreme Court decision at the intersection of products liability and federal preemption.
To what extent does the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, particularly as amended in 1969, preempt state-law damages claims against cigarette manufacturers—such as failure to warn, fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment, conspiracy to misrepresent, and breach of express warranty—based on smoking and health with respect to advertising or promotion?
Express preemption under 15 U.S.C. § 1334 must be interpreted according to statutory text and in light of the presumption against preemption in areas of traditional state regulation. The 1965 Act's preemption provision does not preempt common-law damages actions; it principally bars additional statements in advertising. The 1969 Act's § 1334(b), however, preempts state-law requirements or prohibitions based on smoking and health with respect to the advertising or promotion of cigarettes that comply with federal labeling. Common-law damages duties can constitute "requirements or prohibitions." Claims predicated on a general duty not to deceive (e.g., intentional fraud) or on a manufacturer's own voluntary undertakings (e.g., express warranty) are not preempted, but claims that, in effect, impose additional or different warnings or restrict advertising or promotion on the basis of smoking and health are preempted.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The 1965 Act does not preempt state common-law damages actions. Under the 1969 Act, state-law failure-to-warn claims and "neutralization" claims are preempted insofar as they rely on omissions or content in cigarette advertising or promotion after the effective date of the 1969 amendments. Breach of express warranty claims are not preempted. Intentional fraud and misrepresentation claims are not preempted to the extent they rest on the general duty not to deceive rather than on a duty to provide additional warnings; conspiracy to misrepresent may likewise proceed to the extent it alleges deceptive conduct independent of any additional warning requirements.
Cipollone is the foundational case for parsing express preemption clauses in product-regulatory statutes. It establishes that common-law damages actions can be preempted, but only to the extent that their underlying duties fall within the statute's express scope. The decision's predicate-duty framework has become a staple of preemption analysis, guiding courts to ask what the state-law claim actually requires of the defendant and whether that duty intrudes into the federal field. Beyond tobacco litigation, Cipollone's reasoning has influenced cases assessing when fraud, warranty, and failure-to-warn claims survive statutory preemption, and it set the stage for later decisions such as Altria Group v. Good (permitting certain deceptive-marketing claims to proceed) by reinforcing the distinction between state duties to warn and the general duty not to deceive.