|
3776 REVIEW DENIED In the master settlement agreement resolving litigation by 40 states against tobacco companies, the provision prohibiting the companies from targeting youth in its advertising requires intent, but such intent may be found if the company knows to a substantial certainty that its advertising will reach youth; evidence derived from market research was properly admitted for the purpose of that finding; an injunction requiring the companies to adopt reasonable measures to reduce exposure of advertising to youth to a level significantly lower than to young adult smokers and to use reliable means such as market research to measure its success toward that goal was not impermissibly vague, because it gave the company adequate notice of what it may and may not do; a sanction award for violating the agreement may be based only on violations that occurred in the state of California.CitationPEO ex rel LOCKYER v REYNOLDS TOBACCO (Tobacco Violation) 116 CA4 1253 [See: EvC 1340; CelTech v LA Cellular 20 C4 163, T/AT 5/99; Brunton v Superior Court 20 C2 202; Korsak v Atlas 2 CA4 1516; State Farm v Campbell 538 US 408, T/AT 7/03]
|
|
