State of Maine v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedJanuary 21, 2009
DocketKENcv-97-134
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (State of Maine v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Maine v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., (Me. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKETr;J0, CV-97-134 \... J ," ,1\J V \ .-- 1-\k ,> " L.- ; '- 1/ I K'J /i // _ '.' 'r

STATE OF MAINE, ex reI. G. STEVEN ROWE,

Plaintiff

v. DECISION AND ORDER

RJ. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants

This matter is before the court on the State's motion to enforce a December 3,

1998 Consent Decree against the defendant.! After weighing the evidence submitted

during trial and reviewing all submitted memoranda, the court renders the following

decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In the mid-1990's, Maine and a number of other states brought suit against the

largest cigarette companies in the United States, including the defendant, RJ. Reynolds

(Reynolds). Rather than litigate, the four major companies, including Reynolds, and the

Attorneys General of forty-six states and six territories, including Maine, signed a

Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) in November of 1998. (Def.'s Ex. 103 (MSA).) The

MSA was implemented through a Consent Decree, and the court, through the Consent

Decree, retained jurisdiction. (Def.'s Ex. 104 (Consent Decree).) The current dispute

arises primarily from a Reynolds advertisement placed in the November 15, 2007, 40 th

Anniversary issue of Rolling Stone magazine.

IOn 5/20/08, this court DENIED the defendant's motion to dismiss the enforcement action. By Order dated 9/5/08, this court GRANTED defendant's motion to strike the state's request for civil sanctions. 2

1. Reynolds' "Camel Farm" Advertisement in Rolling Stone Magazine

Reynolds purchased a four-page gatefold advertisement in the November 15,

2007, 40 th Anniversary issue of Rolling Stone. (See State's Ex. 6.) The gatefold

advertisement contained four pages of Reynolds advertising and five pages of Rolling

Stone editorial content, arranged in the following manner: a lead-in page of advertising

was followed by a page of editorial content; the editorial content was then followed by

two opposing pages of advertising, which opened to four pages of editorial content; this

was followed by one page of lead-out advertising. (Id.; Stipulation <[ 18.) Both the

Reynolds advertisement itself and the circumstances surrounding the placement of the

advertisement relative to the Rolling Stone editorial content are material to the resolution

of this dispute.

a. Reynolds' Camel Farm Advertisement

Reynolds worked with Kaart Marketing to create the Camel Farm advertisement.

(See M. Weinstock Dep. at 33:12-32; 69:16-23.) The advertisement was based on a

preexisting Camel Farm creative platform Reynolds used to promote its Camel Farm

campaign, through which Reynolds supports independent rock labels and bands.

(State's Ex. 8; M. Weinstock Dep. at 43:19-45:13.) The Camel Farm imagery has been in

the public domain since mid-2006. (M. Weinstock Dep. at 107:2-15.) Reynolds gatefold

advertisement used a collection of photographs to display images including: (1) a red

tractor with film reels for wheels and a film projector for an engine; (2) radios, speakers

and television sets growing from the ground; (3) flying radios with propellers; and (4)

an eagle carrying a mirror from which protrudes a disembodied hand. (State's Ex. 6.)

Rolling Stone had no involvement in the creation of the Camel Farm advertisement.

b. Intertwinement W~th Rolling Stone's Editorial Content 3

Rolling Stone commissioned Benjamin Marra to prepare the graphics for the five

pages of editorial content. (Stipulation 1 19.) Entitled "Indie Rock Universe," the

editorial content consists of five pages grouping and cataloging independent rock music

labels and bands, accompanied by hand-drawn illustrations. (State's Ex. 6.) These

illustrations depict UFOs, a rocket-powered guitar, stylized planets, a guitar-playing

robot, a headless, armless bagpiper, and an "animal plant," among others things. (Id.)

The Rolling Stone editorial does not refer to tobacco products, Reynolds, the Camel

brand, or the Camel Farm campaign. (Id.)

Reynolds purchased the gatefold advertisement as a "high impact" unit, which is

designed to increase the odds of the advertisement being seen. Reynolds was aware

that their gatefold advertisement would open up to a Rolling Stone editorial relating to

independent music, and was attempting to connect its brand with independent music

through the advertisement. However, neither Reynolds, nor any Reynolds' employee

or agent, was involved in the development, creation, or execution of the editorial

content. (Stipulation 1 21.) Moreover, neither Reynolds, nor any Reynolds' employee

or agent, previewed the editorial content prior to the printing of the magazine.

(Stipulation 120.) Other than an awareness that Rolling Stone's editorial would concern

independent music, Reynolds had no knowledge or involvement in the substantive or

stylistic content of the editorial. (See Stipulation 1 22-23.) This"separation" between

advertising and editorial decision-making is standard industry practice.

At a 5/17/07 meeting, Rolling Stone showed Reynolds a copy of a gatefold in the

May 3 issue, the first of three planned 40th Anniversary issues. The gatefold included an

advertisement for Patron brand tequila, run adjacent to a Rolling Stone editorial

consisting of traditional typed text and photographs. (Brewer Dep. at 41:9-42:14; Hecht

Dep. at 55:17-57:24; Brown Dep. at 98:16-100:11; see State's Ex. 60.) Based on this 4

example and statements made at the meeting, Reynolds' representatives at the meeting

believed that the November 15 gatefold would look similar. (See, ~ Brewer Dep. at

50:1-14.) Reynolds did not indicate the "Cartoon" ban in its Insertion Order2 or

otherwise inform Rolling Stone about the "Cartoon" ban.

In a letter, following the receipt of an 11/21/07 letter from two state Attorneys

General expressing concern about the Camel Farm advertisement in the November 15 th

issue of Rolling Stone, Reynolds admitted that it was "surprised and concerned" when

the issue was published, and believed the juxtaposition of the Camel Farm advertising

with the gatefold was "unfortunate." (Def.'s Ex. 108.)

II. Reynolds' "Farm Rocks" Website

Readers of the Rolling Stone gatefold advertisement were invited to visit the

"Farm Rocks" age-restricted website. (State's Ex. 6.) The website includes the same

type of photographic montage as the Camel Farm gatefold advertisement and includes,

among other images: (1) a photo image of duck with a bird perched on its head; (2) an

eagle perched on a blindfolded man's head; and (3) a jet-propelled tractor. (State's Ex.

113.) To date, the State has not received any complaints from Maine residents

regarding the "Farm Rocks" website. (Stipulation

III. The Current Action

On 12/4/07, the State moved to enforce the Consent Decree against Reynolds,

asserting that the Rolling Stone advertisement and "Farm Rocks" website violated the

"Cartoon" provision of the Consent Decree.

DISCUSSION

2 Reynolds' Insertion Order constitutes the "positioning guidelines" for its advertising.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Baybutt Construction Corp. v. Commercial Union Insurance
455 A.2d 914 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1983)
White v. Nason
2005 ME 73 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2005)
State v. Shattuck
2000 ME 38 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2000)
Land Use Regulation Commission v. Tuck
490 A.2d 649 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1985)
Banker v. Bath Iron Works Corp.
507 A.2d 602 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1986)
Jacobs v. Jacobs
507 A.2d 596 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1986)
Penobscot Nation v. Stilphen
461 A.2d 478 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1983)
Shrader-Miller v. Miller
2004 ME 117 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-rj-reynolds-tobacco-co-mesuperct-2009.