Jump to:

Lorillard

Regence Blue Shield, Plaintiffs, V. Philip Morris, Incorporated, Defendants. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Jury Demand). No. C98-0559r

Date: 21 May 1998
Length: 185 pages
82483862-82484046
Jump To Images
spider_lor 82483862_4046

Fields

Author
Ahearne, T.
Bschorr, P.J.
Dadoun, D.J.
Fitzpatrick, V.R., J.R.
Hall, C.M.
Hefter, M.C.
Howorth, D.B.
Kane, C.
Mcdevitt, H.K.
Mellem, R.D.
Morrow, R.J.
Oconnor, K.L.
Talley, M.J.
Vaska, M.K.
Area
LEGAL DEPT. FILE ROOM/CENTRAL FILES
Type
PLEA, PLEADING
FORM, FORM
Recipient (Organization)
Usdc Wd Wa Seattle
Named Person
Ashworth, J.T.
Auerbach
Bible, G.
Bryant, D.
Campbell, W.L.
Chapin, J.
Cullman, J.F. III
Dawson, B.
Denoble, V.J.
Dey
Doll, R.
Dorn
Ellis, C.
Friendly, F.
Godfrey, A.
Graham
Gray, B.
Hammond
Hartnett, T.V.
Hill
Horn
Horrigan, E.A., J.R.
Hoyt, W.T.
Johnston, J.W.
Kessler, D.A.
Kippa
Kreisher, J.
Kurt, R.
Mele, P.C.
Mold, J.
Moore, M.
Morgan, J.
Murrow, E.R.
Ochsner, A.
Patton
Rutter, R.W., J.R.
Sandefur, T.E., J.R.
Spears, A.W.
Surgeon General
Tisch, A.
Wakeham, H.
Wigand, J.
Wynder, E.
Xxjoe Camel
Xxmickey Mouse
Xxsanta Claus
Xxsherman
Yeaman, A.
Named Organization
Advisory Board of Scientists
Amed, American Medical Association
Amer, American Tobacco
American Cancer Society
Bat Group Research Conference
Bat Industries
Bat, British American Tobacco
Batco Conference
Bcwa
Blue Cross
Blue Cross + Blue Shield Assn
Blue Cross + Blue Shield of Co
Blue Cross + Blue Shield of Ne
Blue Cross + Blue Shield of Nv
Blue Cross + Blue Shield of Ok
Blue Cross + Blue Shield of Tx
Blue Cross + Blue Shield Plans
Blue Cross Assn
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mt
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wy
Blue Cross Id
Blue Cross of Ak
Blue Cross of Id Health Service
Blue Cross of Wa
Blue Shield
Bluelincs Hmo
Board of Directors
Brazil
Bw, Brown & Williamson
Cbs
Centers for Disease Control + Prevention
Comm of General Counsel
Commerce Comm
Congress
Congressional Comm
Conwood
Corporate Diversified Services
Cosmopolitan
Ctr, Council for Tobacco Research
Dewey Ballantine
Dna Plant Technology
Duke Univ
Executive Comm
Face the Nation
FDA, Food and Drug Administration
Foster Pepper
Ftc, Federal Trade Commission
Germany
Ghs Health Maintenance Org
Group Health Service of Ok
Harrogate
Health Maintenance of or
Health Plan Hi
Healthplus
Healthwise
Hearst Consolidated Publications
Hi Medical Service Assn
Hill Knowlton
Hmo Co
Hmo Ne
Hmo Nm
Hmo or
Hmsa
House
Journal of American Medical Assn
Journal of Preventive Medicine
Lancet
Lifewise
Lig, Liggett
Lm, Liggett & Myers
Luce Publications
Mayo Clinic
Medical Service Corporation of Eastern W
Msc
Natl Assn of Blue Shield Plans
Natl Medical Journal
Natl Tobacco
New England Journal of Medicine
Nm Blue Cross + Blue Shield
Northwest Medical Bureau
Ny Herald Tribune
Ny Post
Ny State Journal of Medicine
Ny Times
Philip Morris Research + Development Com
Pinkerton
PM, Philip Morris
Premera Health Plan
Public Relations Enterprise
Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of or
Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ut
Regence Blue Shield
Regence Blue Shield of Id
Regence Health Maintenance of or
Regence Hmo of or
Regence Id
Regence Life + Health Insurance
Regence Northwest Health
Regence or
Regence Ut
Regence Wa
Regencecare
Rio Grande Hmo
RJR, R.J.Reynolds
Rocky Mountain Hospital + Medical Servic
Scientific Advisory Board
Scientific Research Councils
Scripps Howard Newspapers
Senate
Skagit County Medical Bureau
Ski, Sloan-Kettering Inst
Smokeless Tobacco Research Council
Souza Cruz Overseas
States
Subcomm on Health + the Environment
Supreme Court
Swisher Intl
TI, Tobacco Inst
TIRC, Tobacco Industry Research Comm
Tobacco Industry Research Council
Uk Comm of Tobacco Mfg
US
US Supreme Court
US Tobacco
W Duke + Sons
Waxman Subcomm
Whatcom Medical Bureau
Document File
82483844/82484239/Litigation Regence Blue Shield (Wa) V. PM, Et Al. Court Papers - Volume I
82483845/82484238/Regence Blue Shield V. PM (Washington) Court Papers - Volume I Opened 980501
Date Loaded
06 Dec 2001
Request
R1-080
Litigation
Feda/Produced
Author (Organization)
Blue Cross + Blue Shield Plans
Dewey Ballantine
Foster Pepper
Site
N14
Master ID
82483846/4046

Related Documents:
Brand
Camel
Chesterfield
Kent
Kool
Lucky Strike
Old Gold
Premier
Viceroy
Xa
UCSF Legacy ID
ntd78c00

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: ntd78c00
13 14 15 22 23 24 25 26 LIGGETT & MYERS, INC.; UNITED STATES TOBACCO COMPANY; THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC.; THE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH- U.S.A., INC.; THE SMOKELESS TOBACCO RESEARCH COUNCIL, INC.; HILL AND KNOWLTON, INC.; and UNKNOWN CORPORATIONS A-Z; Defendants. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- iii SOpO81S! 01 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IDI-3299 206-447-4400
Page 2: ntd78c00
• RIDER REGENCE BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF OREGON, including its subsidiaries, Health Maintenance of Oregon, Inc. and Regence HMO of Oregon; and Regence Life & Health Insurance Company; REGENCE BLUESHIELD OF IDAHO; REGENCE BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF UTAH, including its subsidiary HealthWise; BLUE CROSS OF IDAHO HEALTH SERVICE, INC.; BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC.; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NEBRASKA, and its subsidiaries, HMO Nebraska, Inc. and Corporate Diversified Services, Inc.; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF TEXAS, INC., and its subsidiary, Rio Grande HMO, Inc.; BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF WYOMING GROUP HEALTH SERVICE OF OKLAHOMA, INC., (d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma), and its subsidiaries, GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc., (d/b/a B1ueLINCS HMO); HAWAII MEDICAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION, and its subsidiary, Health Plan Hawaii; NEW MEXICO BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, INC., and its subsidiary, HMO New Mexico, Inc.; NORTHWEST MEDICAL BUREAU, including its subsidiaries Skagit County Medical Bureau and Whatcom Medical Bureau; BLUE CROSS OF WASHINGTON AND ALASKA, and its subsidiary, HealthPlus; and LifeWise, A PREMERA Health Plan, Inc.; MEDICAL SERVICE CORPORATION OF EASTERN WASHINGTON; and ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL SERVICE, (d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado, d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nevada), and its subsidiary, IIMO Colorado, Inc.
Page 3: ntd78c00
AO uo (Rev. 10193) Summons In a CNA Action RETURN OF SERVICE t Service of the Summons and Complaint was made by me DATE NAME OF SERVER (PF1NT) TITLE Check one box below to indicate ap ropriate method of service Q Served personally upon the defendant. Plaoe where served: O Left copies thereof at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a, person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left: Q Returned unexecuted: Q Other (specify): STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES TRAVEL SERVICES TOTAL DECLARATION OF SERVER I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct. Executed on Date Signature of Server Address of Server 00 N X- 00 W (x Ch .~ (1) As tC whC rrqy ~ A sornrnGns Sr Rule 4 af th. Federal Rub. Ot Crvll PrCcetlurn • 0
Page 4: ntd78c00
5 6 12 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 business and property of the BCBS Plans, which injury was intended by Defendants and is wholly distinct from the harms suffered by individuals. This action seeks to hold the Tobacco Companies and other Defendants accountable for that conduct and that injury. 3. In 1953, the Tobacco Companies and their allies entered into a conspiracy that continues to this day - a conspiracy that was intended, with great success, to perpetuate smoking and nicotine addiction among American citizens. From the outset, the Tobacco Companies and the other Defendants knowingly and intentionally embarked on a scheme to addict millions of people, including members of the BCBS Plans, to cigarettes and other tobacco products - all with the intent of increasing their annual profits. As a result, millions of Americans have died and millions more will die. As part of their continuing conspiracy, the Tobacco Companies and their allies also intended to force and, again with great success, have forced others to bear the cost of the diseases and deaths caused by the conspiracy. Blue Cross Blue Shield plans are perhaps the largest cost- bearers of Defendants' unlawful conduct. 4. The Tobacco Companies have known for decades, as a result of their internal scientific studies, that (i) nicotine is addictive; (ii) cigarettes serve primarily as devices to deliver nicotine into people's bloodstreams; (iii) smoking and chewing tobacco cause or substantially contribute to myriad debilitating illnesses, including lung, throat and other cancers, emphysema, heart failure and stroke; and (iv) millions of people die as a result of using tobacco products. They have also known for decades that full public awareness of the truth about their products would have had a devastating impact on their financial performance, which, in their view, has counted for much more than appropriate public disclosure concerning the deadly and addictive products they have been purveying. Defendants intended to, did, and continue to impose on health care payers, such as FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHiNGTON98I0I-j299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 2 sooasisl 01
Page 5: ntd78c00
11 12 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Blue Shield and Blue Cross Associations merged to enable independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans to serve their members more economically and efficiently. 17. The BCBS Plans directly contract with thousands of health care service providers, including doctors, dentists, clinics, hospitals, pharmacies and other health care providers (collectively referred to herein as "health care providers"). The BCBS Plans are purchasers of products and services used in, and are providers of benefits for, treatment of nicotine dependence and addiction. The BCBS Plans also make payments as claims administrators acting on behalf of group health plans. As a provider of health benefit plans and related services, the BCBS Plans have paid and will continue to pay the cost of health care services required in connection with smoking- related diseases. 18. The BCBS Plans also contract directly with individuals, employee and other groups, associations and labor groups in their specific service areas across the United States to provide health plan benefits and related services through risk and risk sharing arrangements The BCBS Plans bear risk in entering into contracts with groups and individuals because the BCBS Plans have paid and continue to pay for their members' covered health care costs, regardless of the total amount of costs of these services. The BCBS Plans also enter into contracts to act as claim administrators for and to make payments on behalf of health plans that are wholly or partially self-funded. The BCBS Plans charge and collect an amount from groups and individuals for providing health care coverage and related services under these arrangements. 19. Under applicable laws and regulations in many states, Blue Cross Blue Shield plans are required to offer to private groups various types of health coverage and benefits that include coverage for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases. In addition, in furtherance of their FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON9810I'3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 8 5IXq81B) 01
Page 6: ntd78c00
I and Blue Shield plans - in Texas and the Pacific Northwest - were created to provide access to 2 hospital and physician services for the segment of the population that could not afford private 3 medical services. 4 12 13 14. Throughout their histories, many Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans have been "insurers of last resort" in their respective states. To the extent that a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan has been an "insurer of last resort," it provided health care insurance coverage and other services to any individual regardless of that person's medical condition. This open-door policy - mandated by state law - has had the effect of causing those Blue Cross Blue Shield plans to insure a disproportionately higher proportion of individuals with smoking-related diseases. Through their deceptive and unlawful conduct, the Tobacco Companies and other Defendants have increased the costs of all of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans and disproportionately increased the costs of those plans who are or have been "insurers of last resort." 15. The Blue Shield symbol was informally adopted in 1948 by a group of nine health care contractors, all dedicated to making health care benefits more economical and available to the American public. This group increased its numbers and eventually became the National Association of Blue Shield Plans, which was formed to hold and license the Blue Shield symbol and related marks to independent physician-sponsored health care plans. 16. Meanwhile, the Blue Cross symbol became a nationally recognized symbol for health care plans that would guarantee payment of covered hospital charges in consideration for periodic payments by members. In 1962, these plans formed the Blue Cross Association to hold and license the Blue Cross symbol and related marks to independent hospital health care plans. In 1982, the - FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC !I I I THIRD AVENUE, $UITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98ioi-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 7 / I 300818701
Page 7: ntd78c00
S I 2 3 4 10 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the BCBS Plans, the enormous cost of treatment of tobacco-related illnesses and addiction. Through their conspiracy of lies, deceit and other unlawful conduct, the Tobacco Companies have avoided paying such health care costs and, as a result, have unlawfully shifted a large amount of such costs to the BC/BS Plans. 5. Smoking-related illnesses account for one out of every five deaths each year in the United States; cigarette smoking is thus the leading cause ofpremature death in this country, killing more than 400,000 Americans annually. The ruinous health impact caused by the Tobacco Companies' products is unprecedented. For example: (1) cigarette smoking causes as much as 85% of all lung cancer; (2) smoking causes more than 80% of deaths from pulmonary diseases, such as emphysema and bronchitis; and (3) smoking causes thousands of deaths from cardiovascular diseases, such as stroke, heart attack, peripheral vascular disease and aortic aneurysm. All told, annual smoking-related deaths exceed the combined deaths caused by automobile accidents, AIDS, alcohol use, illegal drug use, homicide, suicide and fires. 6. In addition, numerous members of the BCIBS Plans have been victims of illnesses attributable to passive or second-hand smoke by virtue of their exposure to smoke from Defendants' tobacco and other nicotine products. Such exposure has also resulted in smoking or tobacco-related disease, and in increased healthcare costs borne by the BC/BS Plans. 7. Commencing in 1953, the Tobacco Companies conspired to and did embark upon a massive and prolonged program of purposeful deception and misrepresentation and unreasonable restraint of trade that continues to this day. Repeatedly, they have made and continue to make knowingly false public pronouncements - and have given knowingly false sworn testimony - to the effect that they were in possession and had knowledge of no evidence that nicotine is addictive or FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I ITHIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3299 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 3 saooais'rni
Page 8: ntd78c00
_ I 1 NEBRASKA .................................................................................................... ..................................................138 2 COUNT 24. Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1602) ......................................••••••••••••• 138 3 COUNT 25. 4 Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1603) .............................................•••••• 139 5 NE VADA .................................................................................................... .......................................................141 6 COUNT 26. Nevada Consumer Fraud Act (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 41.600, 598.0915) ................................••••.•••••••• 141 7 COUNT 27. 8 Nevada Unfair Trade Practices Act (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060) .....................................•••.•••••••.142 9 COUNT 28. Nevada Racketeering Law (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 207.400(1)(c) and (h)) ..........................••••••••••••••••• 144 10 ll COUNT 29. Nevada Racketeering Law (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 207.400(1)(a) and (h)) ........................................... 146 12 NEW MEXICO .................................................................................................... ............................................147 13 COUNT 30. 14 New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-3) ................................••..••••••• 147 15 COUNT 31. New Mexico False Advertising Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-15-1) ........................................••••••••••.• 148 16 COUNT 32. 17 New Mexico Restraints of Trade Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1-1) ..................................................• 149 18 COUNT 33. New Mexico Racketeering Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-42-4(C) and (D)) ..................................•••• 150 19 COUNT 34. 20 New Mexico Racketeering Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-42-4(A) and (D)) .....................................• 152 21 OKLAHONIA .................................................................................................... ...............................................153 22 COUNT 35. Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (Okla. Stat. tit. 15, §751 et se .) .............................••..•••••••• 153 23 COUNT 36. m 24 Oklahoma Combinations in Restraint of Trade Act (Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 1) ...............................155 .r. 25 26 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I01-ju99 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Vii 5WU618'/0I
Page 9: ntd78c00
W S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 11 REGENCE BLUESHIELD, including its subsidiaries, RegenceCare and 12 Regence Northwest Health; 13 REGENCE BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF OREGON, including its subsidiaries, Health 14 Maintenance of Oregon, Inc. and Regence HMO of Oregon; and Regence Life & Health Insurance 15 Company; 16 REGENCE BLUESHIELD OF IDAHO; 17 REGENCE BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF UTAH, including its subsidiary HealthWise; No. C98-0559R 18 BLUE CROSS OF IDAHO HEALTH SERVICE, 19 INC.; 20 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC.; PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 21 BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF 00 (JURY DEMAND) fV 22 NEBRASKA, and its subsidiaries, HMO .A Nebraska, Inc. and Corporate Diversified Services, 00 23 Inc.; W co 24 BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF TEXAS, INC., and its subsidiary, Rio Grande HMO, Inc.; rn O\ 25 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF WYOMING; 26 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I S i I THIRU AVEN UE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, W ASHINCTON 98I°I-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - i 500081B] 01
Page 10: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 11 12 13 14 15 16 becoming healthier, they spent millions of dollars on research to ensure that their products continued to contain addictive amounts of nicotine. While falsely claiming to assume a public duty with regard to the relationship between smoking and health, they actually concentrated their efforts on marketing methods that were meant to increase nicotine consumption and addiction. Targeting children and minorities has been and continues to lie at the foundation of the Tobacco Companies' plot to increase tobacco and nicotine consumption and to ensure that they capture an addicted customer base for the future. The Tobacco Companies have known for years that, as a result of their ongoing illegal conduct and conspiracy, millions of addicted smokers would be unable to quit smoking and would be customers until smoking killed them. 10. The Tobacco Companies also have violated the antitrust laws of the United States and of the states, laws that protect competition over quality and innovation just as they protect competition over price. Defendants have broken these laws by entering into, in 1953, and continuing to this day to abide by the terms of, a combination and conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade: • to suppress innovation and competition in product quality - by agreeing not to engage in research, development, manufacturing and marketing of less harmful cigarettes and other tobacco products; • to suppress output in a market, and to engage in a concerted refusal to deal - by agreeing to zero output of less harmful cigarettes and other tobacco products; and • to suppress competition in marketing - by agreeing not to take business from one another by making claims as to the relative safety of particular brands, whether or not such claims would have been truthful. This willful violation of the antitrust laws resulted in clearly foreseeable injury to members of the BCBS Plans. It was foreseeable that their antitrust violations would cause the precise type of injury FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I i i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASH]NGTON 98IOI-g199 206-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 5 50W818]OI
Page 11: ntd78c00
I C OLOR4DO .................................................................................................... ................................................122 COUNT 12. Colorado Consumer Protection Act (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105) .................................................. 122 COUNT 13. Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-0-104) .........................................................123 COUNT 14. Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-17-104(3) and (4)) ....................124 COUNT 15. Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-17-104(1) and (4)) ....................126 8 HAWAII .................................................................................................... ........................................................I27 COUNT 16. Hawaii Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3) ............................... 127 COUNT 17. Hawaii Restraint of Trade Act (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4) ...............................................................128 IDAHO .................................................................................................... ..........................................................130 13 14 15 COUNT 18. Idaho Unfair Sales Act (Idaho Code § 48-012) .............................................................................•--130 COUNT 19. Idaho Consumer Protection Act (Idaho Code § 48-603) .................................................................131 COUNT 20. Idaho Antitrust Act (Idaho Code § 48-101) .........................................................................•••••.••••••132 COUNT 21. Idaho Racketeering Act (Idaho Code §§ 18-7804(c) and (d',) ...................................................•.....133 COUNT 22. Idaho Racketeering Act (Idaho Code §§ 18-7804(a) and (d)) .........................................................136 21 22 23 24 25 26 MONTANA .................................................................................................... ...................................................137 COUNT 23. Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-205) .................................................................................................... ....................................137 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHfNGTON9gi0I-3299 206-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - vi SaWa 197 01
Page 12: ntd78c00
OREGON .................................................................................................... ......................................................156 COUNT 37. Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.607, 646.608) .................................156 COUNT 38. Oregon Antitrust Act (Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.725) .........................................................••..•••••••••••••••• 158 TEXAS .................................................................................................... ..........................................................159 COUNT 39. Texas Antitrust Act (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 15.05) ..........................................................159 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 UTAH .................................................................................................... ............................................................160 COUNT 40. Utah Truth in Advertising Act (Utah Code Ann. § 13-11a-3) ......................................................••160 COUNT 41. Utah Antitrust Act (Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-914) ........................................................................•• 162 COUNT 42. Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act (Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-1603(3) and (4) .....................163 COUNT 43. Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act (Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-1603(1) and (4)) ....................165 WASHINGTON .................................................................................................... ...........................................166 COUNT 44. Washington Unfair Business Practices Act (RCW 19.86.020) .......................................................166 COUNT 45. Washington Unfair Business Practices - Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86.030)/Washington State Constitution .........................................................................••167 W YOMING .................................................................................................... ...................................................168 COUNT 46. Wyoming Consumer Protection Act (Wyoming Stat. § 40-12-105) ............................................... 168 23 24 25 26 VII. JURY DEI4AND .................................................................................................... .................................................170 VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................... ...................................170 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I x I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 34a0 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IUI-3299 206-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - viii 50008187 01
Page 13: ntd78c00
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 provider of health care benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health plan costs incurred by its members, BC Idaho has paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. 29. Plaintiff Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. ("BC/BS Montana") is a not-for- profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Montana, with its principal place of business located at 560 N. Park Avenue, Helena, Montana. BC/BS Montana, with its corporate affiliates, is the largest provider of health plan benefits and related services in Montana. As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health care costs incurred by its members, BCBS Montana has paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. 30. Plaintiff Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska is a non-profit mutual insurance company incorporated under the laws of the State of Nebraska, with its principal place of business located in Omaha, Nebraska. Plaintiff HMO Nebraska, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska and is a Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Plaintiff Corporate Diversified Services, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska and is a Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska and its subsidiaries are collectively referred to herein as "BCBS Nebraska". BCBS Nebraska is the largest provider of health plan benefits and related services in Nebraska. As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health care costs incurred by its members, BCBS Nebraska has paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I ITHIRD AVENUE, $UITE 34Oo SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3299 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 12 50op818'J0I
Page 14: ntd78c00
I I 2 0 Defendants Targeted Children And Minorittes ................ ..................... ................ .......... .................. -••..80 P. Defendants Fraudulently Concealed Their Misconduct ........................................................................ 83 Q. The Tobacco /ndustry Must Be Held Accountable .............................................................................. .. 87 R. New Evidence of Wrong(ul Conduct is Emerging ..... ........................................................................... ........-~. 87 V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ALLEGED BY ALL BCIBS PLANS ................................................................................89 COUNT 1. VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (c) and 1962 (d)) .....................................................................89 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 COUNT2. VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (a) and (d)) ..............................................................................98 COUNT 3. VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1) ............................................................................102 COUNT 4. VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1) ............................................................................105 COUNT 5. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATI ON ...................................................................................................1 07 COUNT 6. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT .................................................................................................... ...........111 COUNT7. BREACH OF SPECIAL DUTY .................................................................................................... ..................113 COUNT 8. UNJUST ENRICHMENT .................................................................................................... ...........................115 COUNT 9. CONSPIRACY .................................................................................................... .............................................116 VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF BY INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF BCIBS PLANS .......................................................... 118 ALASKA .................................................................................................... .......................................................118 COUNT 10. Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471)..........118 COUNT 11. Alaska Restraint of Trade Act (Alaska Stat. § 450.50.562) ............................................... _........ ...121 26 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i I I THIftD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98IOI-3199 2o6'447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - V 50008187 01
Page 15: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 11 12 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 benefits and related services in Oregon. As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health care costs incurred by its members, Regence Oregon and its subsidiaries have paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. 26. Plaintiff Regence BlueShield of Idaho ("Regence Idaho") is a mutual health insurance company incorporated under the laws of the State of Idaho with its principal place of business located in Lewiston, Idaho. As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health care costs incurred by its members, Regence Idaho and its subsidiaries (collectively referred to herein as "Regence-Idaho") have paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. 27. Plaintiff Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah ("Regence Utah") is a Utah corporation with its principal place of business located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Plaintiff HealthWise is a subsidiary of Regence Utah and is a Utah corporation with its principal place of business located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Regence Utah and its subsidiary (collectively referred to herein as "Regence-Utah") are the largest provider of health plan benefits and related services in Utah. As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health care costs incurred by its members, Regence Utah has paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. 28. Plaintiff Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc. ("BC-Idaho") is a non-profit mutual insurance company incorporated under the laws of the State of Idaho, with its principal place of business located at 3000 East Pine Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. BC Idaho is, with its corporate affiliates, the largest provider of health plan benefits and related services in the State of Idaho. As a FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I i I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I0I'3299 >.06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 1 1 50008187 01
Page 16: ntd78c00
5 6 7 20 26 that the use of their tobacco products caused any illnesses or diseases. This was exactly the nature of the blatantly false testimony provided by chief executives of a number of the Tobacco Companies in 1994 before a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Even today as the Tobacco Companies attempt to use their political muscle to enact legislation immunizing their legal liabilities, the Tobacco Companies continue to mislead Congress about their knowledge of the deadly and addictive nature of smoking and chewing tobacco. This campaign continues today through, among other things, the use of scare tactics and misleading statements published in nationally circulated newspapers and magazines. Such statements were published as recently as April 1998. Through this public campaign of deception and lying to Congress and other public health authorities, the Tobacco Companies and other Defendants intended that, among others, the BC/BS Plans and their members would rely to their detriment on such statements and that as a result the BCBS Plans would be required to bear a large share of the cost of the national health calamity knowingly and intentionally caused by the Tobacco Companies. 8. Defendants rationalize that smoking is a matter of individual choice. In fact, the American public has never been given an opportunity to make a well-informed choice about smoking because Defendants' own deception has prevented the public from fully understanding the depth and severity of the addictive nature of cigarettes and other tobacco products. For example, in an internal 1978 memorandum, Defendant Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation acknowledged that "very few consumers are aware of the effects of nicotine, i.e., its addictive nature and that nicotine is a poison " 9. The Tobacco Companies' and the other Defendants' conspiracy went further and relied on a subtler campaign of subterfuge. While falsely claiming that their products were FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC Iz I i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINOTON98IOI-3199 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 4 5000818] 01
Page 17: ntd78c00
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 24 25 26 31. Plaintiff Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming ("BCIBS Wyoming") is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Wyoming, with its principal place of business located at 4000 House Avenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. BC/BS Wyoming is the largest provider of health plan benefits and related services in Wyoming. As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health care costs incurred by its members, BC/BS Wyoming has paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. 32. Plaintiff Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, Inc. ("BCBS Texas") is a group hospital service corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal place of business located at 901 South Central Expressway, Richardson, Texas. Plaintiff Rio Grande HMO, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, Inc. and is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Richardson, Texas. BC/BS Texas is, with its corporate affiliates, the largest provider of health plan benefits and related services in Texas. As providers of health care benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health plan costs incurred by its members, BCBS Texas and its subsidiaries (collectively referred to herein as`BCBS Texas") has paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. 33. Plaintiff Group Health Service of Oklahoma, Inc., doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma, is a not-for-profit mutual corporation incornorated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, with its principal place of business located at 1215 South Boulder, Tulsa, Oklahoma. GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc., doing business as BlueLINCS HMO, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Group Health Service of Oklahoma, Inc. and is an Oklahoma FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IDI-3199 >o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 13 5000816) 01
Page 18: ntd78c00
CSC e United States Corporation *mpany 1013 entre Road, Wilmington, DE, 19805-1297 (302) 636-5400 United States Corporation Company The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc. NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PROCESS Date Processed: 22-MAY-98 Transmittal #: WA0494842P ALL To: ARTHUR J STEVENS Redirect sent to: LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY 714 GREEN VALLEY ROAD (P.O. BOX 10529 - ZIP 27404-05 GREENSBORO NC 27408 TYPE OF REPRESENT.`,T'ION: Statutory We enclose the following documents which were served upon: The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc. as registered agent in Washington for LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY (ID/t: 0175250) Documents were served on 22-MAY-98 via Personal Service ID/{: N/A Title of Action: REGENCE BLUESHIELD ET AL Case #: C98-0559R vs. PHILIP MORRIS, INCORPORATED ET AL Court: U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Nature of Case: CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ALLEGED BY ALL BC/BS PLANS - COUNTS 1 THUR 9 AND CLAIMS FOR RELIEF BY INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF BC/BS PLANS, INDIVIDUAL STATES. JURY DEMAND. FOR DETAILS SEE COMPLAINT X Sutnmons _ Notice of Mechanic's Lien A self-addressed stamped X Complaint Notice of Attorney's Lien envelope enclosed Garnishment _ Notice of Default Judgment Duplicate copies of the Notice _ Subpoena and Acknowledgement enclosed X Other: NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT, ORDER ON MOTION ETC. Answer Due: WITHIN TWENTY DAYS AFTER SERVICE Documents Sent: Federal Express ID#: Call Placed: No call placed Spoke to: N/A Comments: N/A Attorney for Claimant: CAMDEN M. HALL FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 206-447-4400 Form Prepared By: Marol Moeller Please ac now e ge receipt o t u notice an t e enc osures by signing an returning t rs ac now e gentent copy. business rep y envelope is enclosed for your convenience. /~ DATE RECEIVED: % Js ~id CLIENT SIGNATURE: Acknowledgement Copy - to b med to the address above The information on this transmittal is provided for use in forwarding the attached documents. This information does not constitute a legal opimon as to the facts or detads of this action. These should be obtained from the documents themselves. The recciver of this transmittal is responsible for interpreting the documents and for taking appropriate action. If you have recetved only a copy of the transtruttal, you should be aware that the documents have been sent to the original addressee. You should contact that addressee for derads or interpretattons of the content of those documents.
Page 19: ntd78c00
I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 24 25 26 Plaintiffs, seventeen independent Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield Plans and their affiliates (collectively the "BC/BS Plans"), which provide comprehensive health plan and benefit financing and related services to millions of Americans (referred to herein as their "members"), including health plan benefits and related services for tobacco-related illnesses, by and through their counsel of record, Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC and Dewey Ballantine LLP, for their complaint against Defendants in this action - the major tobacco companies in the United States (collectively the "Tobacco Companies") and their trade associations, research agents and public relations firm - allege as follows: I. NATURE OF THIS ACTION A. Summary of Plaintiffs' Claims 1, These BC/BS Plans, together with all other Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, have for decades paid for a broad range of health care benefits and related services to hundreds of millions of Americans, and today serve more than 68 million people as the largest non-governmental provider of health benefit plans and related services in the country. The BCBS Plans have since their inception been dedicated to furnishing their members with comprehensive, economical and timely access to health care benefits, 2. As the direct and proximate cause of the Tobacco Companies' and other Defendants' ongoing conspiracy and deceptive, illegal and tortious acts described herein, the BCBS Plans have suffered and are suffering extraordinary injury in their business and property, having been required to expend many billions of dollars on costs attributable to tobacco-related diseases caused by Defendants. This injury does not take the form of personal injuries suffered by smokers, and it is not a derivative injury of the harm caused to smokers. It is a separate economic injury directly to the FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, wASHINCTON 98IOI-3199 xo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 1 s00o918"/U1
Page 20: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 13 14 15 16 17 24 25 26 subsidiary (collectively referred to herein as "BCBS New Mexico") is one of the largest providers of health plan benefits and related services in New Mexico. As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health care costs incurred by its members, BC/BS New Mexico has paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. 36. Plaintiff Northwest Medical Bureau ("Northwest Medical") is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington, with its principal place of business located at 1100 S. Second Street, Mount Vernon, Washington. Northwest Medical operates through its subsidiaries, Skagit County Medical Bureau and Whatcom Medical Bureau, in Skagit, Whatcom, Island, and San Juan counties in the State of Washington (collectively "Northwest Medical"). As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health care costs incurred by its members, Northwest Medical has paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. 37. Plaintiff Blue Cross of Washington and Alaska (`BCWA") is a health service contractor formed and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, with its principal place of business located in Mountlake Terrace, Washington. Plaintiff HealthPlus is a subsidiary of BCWA and is a Washington health maintenance organization, with its principal place of business located in Mountlake Terrace, Washington. Plaintiff LifeWise, A PREMERA Health Plan, Inc. ("LifeWise") is a for-profit Oregon corporation, which is wholly-owned by a subsidiary of BCWA, with its principal place of business located in Portland, Oregon. As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health care costs FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I i I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3299 uo6-447-44oa FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 15 sooosie 01
Page 21: ntd78c00
5 6 7 13 14 24 25 26 that the BC/BS Plans have suffered in their business or property - increased costs for health care and related services needed by smokers - injury that is inextricably intertwined with that suffered by the smokers themselves. Moreover, but for the unlawful agreement, the BC/BS Plans would have had the opportunity to be customers for less harmful cigarettes, or other nicotine products, as part of the effort made by providers of health services with which the BCBS Plans contract, to wean their members from addiction to smoking cigarettes or using other tobacco products or to ameliorate the consequences of that addiction. 11. In this action, the BC/BS Plans intend to bring the Tobacco Companies to account for the business and financial injuries, primarily in the form of payments for treatments of tobacco- related diseases, that the BCBS Plans have suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' decades-long conspiracy of deceit, manipulation and death. B. Nature of Plaintiffs' Business 12. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans are all independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, through which the BC/BS Plans license the right to use the Blue Cross and Blue Shield® names and symbols. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans and their predecessors have been providing health care coverage, and other related services, to their members since the beginning of the 1900s. Today, the BC/BS Plans, together with all other Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, constitute the largest private provider of health plan benefits and payer of health care benefits in the United States, paying for health care financing for more than 68 million people. 13. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, including Plaintiffs, are independent, locally- operated companies, that provide health plan benefits and related services with their corporate affiliates, within defined geographic regions, in most cases based on state lines. The first Blue Cross FOSTER PEPPER & SfiEFELMAN PLLC I i I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98IaI-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 6 sooosis7 01
Page 22: ntd78c00
5 6 7 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 contractual obligations to groups and individuals, the BC/BS Plans have paid and will continue to pay substantially higher amounts to health care providers, including amounts paid on behalf of self- funded groups. The BCBS Plans have also paid and will continue to pay substantially higher amounts for drugs and other products which aid in the treatment of nicotine addiction. These increased expenditures have been caused by the unlawful actions of the Tobacco Companies and other Defendants. 20. In addition, many Blue Cross Blue Shield plans have expended and will continue to expend substantial sums of money to fund and promote wellness and healthy lifestyle programs in order to reduce health care costs. These increased expenditures have also been caused by the unlawful actions of the Tobacco Companies and other Defendants. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21. Jurisdiction of this Court is predicated upon federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and the original jurisdiction granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a). Jurisdiction is based on 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26 (the Clayton Act) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and 1964 (Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")). 22. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over Plaintiffs' state law claims because they are so related to the federal question claims that they form part of the same case or controversy and stem from the same nucleus of facts on which the federal antitrust and RICO claims are based. 23. At all times material hereto, Defendants resided and did business in this District. Venue is thus proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Moreover, at all times material FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SIIITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLA INT - 9 500081 Y/01
Page 23: ntd78c00
I 2 3 10 11 12 19 incurred by its members, BCWA and its subsidiaries (collectively referred to herein as "BCWA") has paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. 38. Plaintiff Medical Service Corporation of Eastern Washington ("MSC") is a health care service contractor formed and existing under the laws of the State of Washington with its principal place of business located in Spokane, Washington. As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employees and other groups and as direct payer of health care costs incurred by its members, MSC has paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. _ 39. Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service ("Rocky Mountain"), doing business in Colorado as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado and in Nevada as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nevada, is a non-profit hospital and medical service corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Colorado, with its principal place of business located at 700 Broadway, Denver, Colorado. Plaintiff HMO Colorado, Inc., doing business in Colorado as HMO Colorado and in Nevada as HMO Nevada, is a subsidiary of Rocky Mountain and is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business located in Denver, Colorado. As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health care costs incurred by its members, Rocky Mountain and its subsidiaries (collectively referred to as "Rocky Mountain") have paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. FOSTER PEPPER & SFiEFELMAN PLLC I I I I-rHIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, uIASH M GTON 98I0I-3 299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 16 DW09 187 0
Page 24: ntd78c00
12 13 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 co-conspirators conducted significant research for Brown & Williamson on the topics of smoking, disease and addiction. Brown & Williamson and B.A.T. conspired to remove from the United States and to send to B.A.T. in England quantities of research conducted in the United States on the topics of smoking, disease and addiction in order to remove sensitive and inculpatory documents from U.S. jurisdiction. B.A.T. is a participant in the conspiracy described herein and has caused harm and affected commerce in the United States. 44. Defendant British American Tobacco Company, Ltd. ("BATCO") is a British corporation whose registered office is at Milbank, Knowles, Green, Staines, Middlesex, England TW 18 1DY. Defendant BATCO is or was a related corporation of defendant Brown & Williamson. Both are owned by B.A.T. BATCO advertises, promotes and sells its own nicotine tobacco products throughout the United States. At all times pertinent to this complaint, defendant BATCO, individually or through its affiliate, agent and alter ego, subsidiary and/or division defendant Brown and Williamson, designed, tested, manufactured, marketed and sold cigarettes for use in the United States. BATCO has itself or has through its affiliated companies, agents, or subsidiaries also conducted significant research for Brown & Williamson on the topics of smoking, disease and addiction. Upon information and belief, Brown & Williamson also sent to England research conducted in the United States on the topics of smoking, disease and addiction in order to remove the sensitive and inculpatory documents from U.S. jurisdiction. BATCO is a participant in the conspiracy described herein and has caused harm and affected commerce in the United States. 45. Defendant Lorillard Tobacco Company ("Lorillard") is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is 1 Park Avenue, New York, New York. Lorillard manufactures, advertises and sells cigarettes and other nicotine tobacco products throughout the United States. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I1I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98IOI-32g9 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 18 50008I8] 01
Page 25: ntd78c00
1 2 9 10 11 17 18 W GROUP HEALTH SERVICE OF OKLAHOMA, INC., (d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma), and its subsidiaries, GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc., (d/b/a B1ueLINCS HMO); HAWAII MEDICAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION, and its subsidiary, Health Plan Hawaii; NEW MEXICO BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, INC., and its subsidiary, HMO New Mexico, Inc.; NORTHWEST MEDICAL BUREAU, including its subsidiaries, Skagit County Medical Bureau and Whatcom Medical Bureau; BLUE CROSS OF WASHINGTON AND ALASKA, and its subsidiary, HealthPlus; and LifeWise, A PREMERA Health Plan, Inc.; MEDICAL SERVICE CORPORATION OF EASTERN WASHINGTON; and ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL SERVICE, (d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado, d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nevada), and its subsidiary, HMO Colorado, Inc.; Plaintiffs, v. PHILIP MORRIS, INCORPORATED; R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION; B.A.T. INDUSTRIES, P.L.C.; BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, LTD.; LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY; LIGGETT GROUP, INC.; FIRST AMENDED COMPLA INT - ii SanOS18701 I FOSTER PEPPER & SI-TEFELMAN PLLC I I i I THI RD AVENUE, $U1TE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3199 106-447-4400
Page 26: ntd78c00
B. Defendants 10 11 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 40. Defendant Philip Morris, Incorporated ("Philip Morris") is a Virginia corporation whose principal place of business is 120 Park Avenue, New York, New York. Philip Morris manufactures, advertises and sells cigarettes and other nicotine tobacco products throughout the United States. 41. Defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("R.J. Reynolds") is a New Jersey corporation whose principal place of business is Fourth & Main Street, Winston--Salem, North Carolina. R.J. Reynolds manufactures, advertises and sells cigarettes and other nicotine tobacco products throughout the United States. 42. Defendant Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation ("Brown & Williamson") is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is 1500 Brown & Williamson Tower, Louisville, Kentucky. Brown & Williamson manufactures, advertises and sells cigarettes and other nicotine tobacco products throughout the United States. Brown & Williamson has also been named a defendant as successor in interest to The American Tobacco Company ("American Tobacco"), which was merged with and into Brown & Williamson in 1994. As such, Brown & Williamson is legally liable for the conduct of American Tobacco. 43. Defendant B.A.T. Industries P.L.C. ("B.A.T.") is a British corporation whose principal place of business is Windsor House, 50 Victoria Street, London SWIH ONL. Through a succession of intermediary corporations and holding companies, B.A.T. is the sole shareholder of Brown & Williamson. Through Brown & Williamson, B.A.T. has placed cigarettes into the stream of commerce with the expectation that substantial sales of cigarettes would be made in the United States. B.A.T. has also conducted, or through its agents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies and/or FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3399 >06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 17 5000618V 01
Page 27: ntd78c00
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 hereto, the Defendants were found or transacted business in this District, and accordingly venue is proper in this District under 15 U.S.C. § 22 and 18 U.S.C. § 1965. III. THE PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 24. Plaintiff Regence BlueShield ("Regence Washington") is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington, with its principal place of business located in Seattle, Washington. Plaintiffs RegenceCare and Regence Northwest Health are subsidiaries of Regence Washington and both are Washington corporations with their principal places of business located in Seattle, Washington. Regence Washington and its subsidiaries (collectively referred to herein as "Regence-Washington") are the largest provider of health plan benefits and related services in Washington. As providers of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health care costs incurred by its members, Regence Washington and its subsidiaries have paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. 25. Plaintiff Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon ("Regence Oregon") is a not-for- profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Oregon with its principal place of business located in Portland, Oregon. Plaintiff Regence Health Maintenance of Oregon, Inc. and Regence HMO Oregon are subsidiaries of Regence Oregon and both are Oregon corporations with their principal places of business located in Portland Oregon. Plaintiff Regence Life & Health Insurance Company is a subsidiary of Regence Oregon, and is an Oregon corporation with its principal place of business located in Portland, Oregon. Regence Oregon and its subsidiaries (collectively referred to herein as "Regence-Oregon") are the largest providers of health plan FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i i i I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WA5HINGTON 98IOi-3299 206-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 10 5000818] 01
Page 28: ntd78c00
I 2 14 21 22 23 24 25 26 corporation, with its principal place of business located at 1215 South Boulder, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Group Health Service of Oklahoma, Inc. and its subsidiaries are collectively referred to herein as "BCBS Oklahoma." BC/BS Oklahoma is, with its corporate affiliates, the largest provider of health plan benefits and related services in Oklahoma. As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health plan costs incurred by its members, BC/BS Oklahoma has paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco-related diseases. 34. Plaintiff Hawaii Medical Service Association ("HMSA") is a non-profit mutual benefit society formed and existing under the laws of the State of Hawaii, with its principal place of business located at 818 Kesaumoko Street, Honolulu, Hawaii. HMSA is, with its corporate affiliates, including plaintiff Health Plan Hawaii (collectively referred to herein as "HMSA"), the largest provider of health plan benefits and related services in Hawaii. Plaintiff Health Plan Hawaii is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of Hawaii with its principal place of business in,Honolulu, Hawaii. As a provider of health plan benefits and other services to individuals and employee and other groups and as a direct payer of health care costs incurred by its members, HMSA has paid and will continue to pay millions of dollars in health care costs related to tobacco- related diseases. 35. Plaintiff New Mexico Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Inc. ("BC/BS New Mexico") is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New Mexico, with its principal place of business located at Indian School Road, N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico. Plaintiff HMO New Mexico, Inc. is a subsidiary of BCBS New Mexico and is a New Mexico corporation with its principal place of business located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. BCBS New Mexico and its FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I II THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 xo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 14 J00081B7 01
Page 29: ntd78c00
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 24 25 26 Companies and as agents and employees of the Tobacco Companies. CTR and TIRC have been involved continuously in the conspiracy described herein, and their actions have affected commerce and caused harm throughout the United States. 51. Defendant The Smokeless Tobacco Research Council, Inc. ("STRC") is a New York non-profit corporation whose principal place of business is 1627 K Street N.W., Washington D.C. Founded in 1969, STRC for most of its history was dominated by U.S. Tobacco, the largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products in the United States. In September 1996, U.S. Tobacco resigned from STRC, leaving as its members Brown & Williamson and several small producers of smokeless tobacco, including The Pinkerton Company, National Tobacco Company, Swisher International and Conwood Company LP. At all relevant times, STRC operated as a propaganda and lobbying arm of the Tobacco Companies and as an agent and employee of the Tobacco Companies. STRC has been financially supported by several of the largest tobacco companies, including at least Brown & Williamson, Lorillard and R.J. Reynolds, and has been involved continuously in the conspiracy described herein. By its conduct, STRC has affected commerce and caused harm throughout the United States. 52. Defendant Hill and Knowlton, Inc. is an international public relations firm whose principal place of business is 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. Hill and Knowlton was centrally involved in the wrongful conduct and conspiracy since its creation, and Hill and Knowlton's actions have affected commerce and caused harm throughout the United States. 53. Various other persons, firms, and corporations, who have been named as Unknown Corporations A-Z, which are parent corporations, alter egos, holding corporations, aliases, FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 20 5oM91aV 01
Page 30: ntd78c00
I 2 3 4 11 12 13 14 57. As a direct result of the unrestrained and unlawful conduct of the Tobacco Companies and other Defendants, tobacco use has become the most pervasive public health issue of our time and the single most preventable cause of death in our society. 58. Medical research has now established that smoking cigarettes also creates a behavioral addiction and habit because it contains nicotine. The addiction created by nicotine is not merely a behavioral or psychological addiction, however, but is physiological as well and involves physical alteration to a smoker's brain structure and functioning. In the absence of nicotine, the addicted smoker suffers symptoms of physical withdrawal, including headaches, constipation, insomnia, depression, inability to concentrate and anxiety. Defendants have known this for decades but have lied about and suppressed these facts, as documents they previously unsuccessfully conspired to conceal have revealed. 59. Once a person starts smoking, it is extremely difficult to stop, and most who try do not succeed. Many smokers are unable to quit until they have heart or lung surgery. Even after a heart attack or lung cancer surgery, approximately one-half of all survivors return to smoking. The changes to the central nervous system involved in nicotine addiction are similar to those involved in cocaine addiction. According to the Surgeon General of the United States: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The pharmacological and behavioral processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine. 60. In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") promulgated regulations establishing the FDA's assertion of jurisdiction over tobacco products as medical drugs and devices under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. After the Tobacco Companies unsuccessfully challenged the FDA's jurisdictional authority in federal court, these regulations became effective in FOSTER PEPPER & SHEPELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3300 $EATTLE, WASHINGTON98IOI-3299 xo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 22 50008 W 01
Page 31: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 10 lI 12 13 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 August 1997. The FDA concluded that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are combination products consisting of nicotine - a drug that causes addiction and other significant pharmacological effects on the human body - and medical device components that deliver nicotine to the body. 61. Smokeless tobacco, which contains nicotine, can also cause cancer. The risk of oral cancer in particular increases with increased exposure to smokeless tobacco products, especially in those areas of the mouth where smokeless tobacco products are used. The risk of cheek and gum cancers is nearly fifty times greater in long-term snuff users than in non-users. Snuff and chewing tobacco contain potent carcinogens, including nitrosamines, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and radioactive polonium. 62. Smokeless tobacco use can cause oral leukoplakia, a precancerous lesion of the soft tissue around the mouth that consists of a white patch or plaque that cannot be scraped off. One study of 117 high school students who were smokeless tobacco users revealed that nearly 50% of those students had oral tissue alterations. There is a 5% chance that oral leukoplakias will transform into malignancies in 5 years. 63. Smokeless tobacco can cause oral cancer and oral leukoplakia and may be associated with an increased risk of cancer of the esophagus. Smokeless tobacco use has been implicated in cancers of the gum, mouth, pharynx and larynx. Snuff use also causes gum recession and is associated with discoloration of teeth and fillings, dental cavities and abrasion of the teeth. B. The Concentration of the Industry 64. Cigarette manufacturing has been one of the most concentrated industries in the United States throughout this century. Until 1994, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, American Tobacco, Lorillard and Liggett together comprised the Big Six cigarette FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i i I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASBINCTON98I0I-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 23 ' 5000BIH701
Page 32: ntd78c00
AO 440 (Rev 10r93) 3ummans in a Ciwl Aona ~ l r + ~YittEb,,Sf?XtPS jBist.rirt (Ilnurt ~%ESTEPN DISTRICT OF t"ASHIN= REGFScE BLUESHIELD, including its subsidiaries, RegenceCare azri Regence Northwest Health, ` (see attached rider), SUMMONS IN A CIWIL CASE V. CASE NUMBER: C98-0559R PHILIP MORRIS, II4CORPORA'LED;R.J. REYNOIDS TOaAZCO COMPANYi BROWN & ~,=IAM.SCN TOBACCO CORFORATION; B.A.T. INDUSTRIES P.L.C.; BRITISE AMIItICAN TOBACCO CQ4PAI9Y, LTD.; LORTraARD 'fOBACCO CCi4PANY; LIGGfiTP GRDUP, INC.; LIGGE'TP & MYERS INC.; UNITED STATES TOBACCO COMPF1NY; ZHE 7UBACC.'O INSTI2UTE, INC.; TfE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESFARCH - U.S.A., IlVC.; THE SMOI=S TOBACCO RESI~ COUNCIL, INC.; HILL AND KDXS•iLTCN, INC.; and UNEVOWIIQ CORPORATIONS A-Z, TO: (Name and address or derendant) Lorillard Tobacco Company 1 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY (name and address) Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLIC Dewey Ballantine LLP 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 1301 Avenue of the Pznesicas Seattle, F>A 98101 New York, NY 10019 206-447-4400 212-259-8000 an answer to the complaint which isherewith servedupon you,within 20/60** days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. li you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service. ** SUMMONS REQUIRES DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS IF SERVED WITHIN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS IF SERVED OUT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 5/21/98 CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE a
Page 33: ntd78c00
1 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 21 22 23 24 25 26 C. Overview of Defendants' Wrongful Conduct And Conspiracy 68. For nearly a half-century, the Tobacco Companies and the other Defendants have pursued an unlawful course of conduct and conspiracy of deceit and misrepresentation against the public, the health care industry and health care payers in order to promote and maintain sales of tobacco products and the profits derived therefrom, to shield themselves from having to pay the health care and other costs attributable to tobacco-related diseases, and to shift those costs to others, including the BC/BS Plans. The conspiracy and other wrongful conduct is ongoing and continues to this day. The Tobacco Companies continue to misrepresent and conceal facts and information from the public, including the BC/BS Plans. 69. Defendants' conspiracy consists fundamentally of four strategies: first, they agreed to represent falsely to the public that they were creating a new, unbiased and therefore trustworthy, source to address issues concerning smoking and health; second, they counted on the public's acceptance of their representations of trustworthiness to allow them to pursue a massive and sophisticated effort to misrepresent, suppress, distort and confuse the facts about the health dangers of tobacco products, including nicotine addiction, while at the same time manipulating the levels of nicotine in their products to foster_ continued addiction; third, they agreed among themselves to refrain from competing with each other to produce and market less harmful cigarettes and other nicotine tobacco products; and fourth, they agreed not to compete among themselves with respect to any claims relating to the relative health superiority of specific tobacco products. 70. The Tobacco Companies set their plan in motion by creating a joint industry research organization in 1954, originally called the Tobacco Industry Research Committee and later named the Council for Tobacco Research. Since that time, the Tobacco Companies have used the FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIND AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I0I-3199 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 25 30WRI 57 01
Page 34: ntd78c00
1 2 3 II 22 23 24 25 26 manufacturers, which controlled virtually 100% of the market in the United States. In 1994, American Tobacco was acquired by B.A.T. and merged with and into Brown & Williamson. Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds are the industry leaders with national market shares of approximately 48% and 25%, respectively, as of March 31, 1998. The approximate market shares of the other cigarette manufacturers are: Brown & Williamson, 17%; Lorillard, 8%; and Liggett, 2%. U.S. Tobacco manufactures 88% of the smokeless tobacco products sold in the United States. 65. The tobacco industry is a tight-knit oligopoly, with a history of collusion. There are substantial barriers to entry into the tobacco market. These barriers include substantial capital costs for entry, the existence of patents, reputational barriers, firmly entrenched incumbent firms with stable market shares, substantial economies of scale and production and regulatory barriers. These barriers to entry are evidenced by the absence of entry in the tobacco market, and a history of high profit margins among participants in the industry. 66. In part because of its concentration, and in part because its customers are physically addicted to the product, making demand relatively inelastic, the tobacco industry is enormously profitable, with profit margins by each of the Tobacco Companies estimated at over 30%. The Tobacco Companies earn billions of dollars in profits each year. For example, in 1996, Philip Morris's parent corporation reported record earnings of $4.2 billion (on worldwide sales of $36.5 billion). Philip Morris's record earnings in 1996 were driven, in part, by increased sales of nicotine products in the United States, with shipments of 230.8 billion cigarettes. 67. In addition, industry concentration and high barriers to entry have allowed the Tobacco Companies and their trade associations to engage in a decades-long conspiracy not to compete in research, development, production and marketing of less harmful cigarettes. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I TH18D AVENUE, SUITE;400 $EATTLE, WASHINCTON 98101-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 24 eoooeie 01
Page 35: ntd78c00
46. Defendant Liggett Group, Inc. ("LGI") is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is located at 700 W. Main Street, Durham, North Carolina. LGI manufactures, advertises and sells cigarettes and other nicotine tobacco products throughout the United State. 47. Defendant Liggett & Myers Inc. ("Liggett") is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is Main and Fuller, 710 Main Street, Durham, North Carolina. Liggett manufactures, advertises and sells cigarettes and other nicotine tobacco products throughout the United States. 12 13 14 15 24 25 26 48. Defendant United States Tobacco Company ("U.S. Tobacco") is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is 100 West Putnam Avenue, Greenwich, Connecticut. U.S. Tobacco manufactures, advertises and sells cigarettes. U.S. Tobacco also manufactures, advertises and sells approximately 88% of the smokeless tobacco (snuff and chewing tobacco) sold in the United States under various brand names. 49. Defendant The Tobacco Institute, Inc. is a New York non-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 1875 I Street N.W., Suite 800, Washington D.C. At all relevant times, the Tobacco Institute operated as a propaganda and lobbying arm of the Tobacco Companies and was an agent and employee of the Tobacco Companies. The Tobacco Institute has been involved in the conspiracy described in this complaint, and the actions of the Tobacco Institute have affected commerce and caused harm throughout the United States. 50. Defendant The Council for Tobacco Research - U.S.A., Inc. ("CTR") is a New York non-profit corporation with is principal place of business at 900 Third Avenue, New York, New York. CTR is successor in interest to the Tobacco Institute Research Committee ("TIRC"). At all relevant times, both CTR and TIRC operated as propaganda and lobbying arms of the Tobacco FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I Z I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I0I-3199 106-447-44o0 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 19 SOaos1d) 01
Page 36: ntd78c00
I 2 7 8 9 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 were required to pay the health care costs caused by, and resulting from, the use of their products, including the costs of diagnosis, treatment, prescription drug benefits and surgical procedures - such as those costs incurred by the BCBS Plans - the Tobacco Companies' profits would have decreased substantially. 75. The BC/BS Plans were directly and indirectly injured by Defendants' wrongful and unlawful conduct in several significant ways, as alleged in detail below. The Tobacco Companies have known since at least the 1950s that their products are inextricably linked to the health care market. Indeed, a 1968 internal draft Philip Morris memorandum stated: "Most Philip Morris products, both tobacco and non-tobacco, are directly related to the health field." Defendants have known that health benefit and insurance payers, including the BC/BS Plans, would be directly affected in their business and property by the Tobacco Companies' actions. Defendants have known that health care payers and insurers, including the BC/BS Plans, would and did rely to their detriment on Defendants' false and misleading statements. 76. But for the Tobacco Companies' and the other Defendants' campaign of misinforma- tion regarding the dangerous and deadly effects of nicotine and tobacco consumption, third-party payers, including the BCBS Plans, would have had the opportunity to pay for counseling services by health care providers with respect to smoking and health. By preventing or causing the delay of such counseling efforts and programs, the Tobacco Companies and other Defendants have substantially increased the number of BCBS Plan members requiring medical treatment for tobacco- related diseases and addiction. Through their illegal course of conduct, the Tobacco Companies have substantially increased the costs incurred by the BCBS Plans. FOSTER PEPPER & SPIEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98L0I-3299 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 28 5000818) 01
Page 37: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 11 22 23 24 25 26 fall within the purview of the anti-trust act." The memorandum thus set forth an explicit intent to violate the antitrust laws by suppressing competition based on claims of superior health benefits associated with an individual company's products. As a result and part of this anticompetitive intent and agreement the Tobacco Companies suppressed research, development, and marketing of less harmful products. To ensure compliance with this agreement, the Tobacco Companies further agreed not to compete based on claims of superior health benefits in advertisements. By agreeing to restrict their advertising in this way, the Tobacco Companies ensured that marketing of less harmful cigarettes would have been unprofitable. 99. The participating cigarette executives recognized that the "problem is one of promoting cigarettes and protecting them from these and other attacks that may be expected in the future." The participating cigarette executives also "agreed to go along with a public relations program on the health issue" through an informal enterprise rather than a more formal association. The memorandum stated that "because of the anti-trust background, the companies do not favor the incorporation of a formal association. Instead, they prefer strongly the organization of an informal committee which will be specifically charged with the public relations function and readily identified as such." 100. The six Tobacco Companies involved at the time and Hill and Knowlton intended that Hill and Knowlton play a central role in the conspiracy. "The current plans are for Hill and Knowlton to serve as the operating agency of the companies, hiring all the staff and disbursing all ao funds." N .t~- 00 w ~ 0 07 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i i i i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON98202-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 35 saoosis7 01
Page 38: ntd78c00
I 2 3 4 5 10 17 18 77. In addition, had the Tobacco Companies and other Defendants disclosed their confi- dential research demonstrating the deadly and dangerous effects of smoking and chewing tobacco and otherwise refrained from their conspiracy of deceit, governmental entities which bear responsibility for the public's health would have initiated or initiated sooner programs that would have reduced the incidence of smoking and chewing tobacco among the general population and among the BCBS Plans' members. By staving off government regulation, Defendants caused the perpetuation of cigarette smoking, thereby increasing the incidence of smoking-related diseases among the public at-large and Plaintiffs' members. Defendants' imlawful conduct directly injured the BC/BS Plans by increasing the number of members requiring medical treatment for tobacco and nicotine-related illnesses and addiction. D. The Tobacco Companies' Ongoing Public Deception About Smoking and Health 78. Inhalable tobacco became widely popular in the 19th century when W. Duke and Sons ("Duke") introduced a mechanized cigarette-rolling machine. Through this device, cigarettes were mass produced, distributed and sold nationwide. 79. In 1881, Duke's factory produced 9.8 million cigarettes, 1.5% of the total market share. Only five years later, Duke manufactured 744 million cigarettes, more than the national total in 1883. By 1890, Duke's competitors, who by that time had become mechanized, joined forces with Duke to establish The American Tobacco Company. By the turn of the century, nine out of every ten cigarettes were manufactured or sold by W. Duke and Sons. 80. Shortly after the formation of The American Tobacco Company, the State of North Carolina initiated an antitrust suit against the company. In May 1911, the Supreme Court dissolved FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i[ I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 $EATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-339y io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 29 5000816] 01
Page 39: ntd78c00
subsidiaries, affiliates or otherwise related to the named defendants, participated in the wrongful acts 7 8 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 alleged in this Complaint. IV. THE DEFENDANTS' CONSPIRACY A. The Health Consequences of Tobacco 54. The human tragedy of smoking-related disease is enormous. Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of premature death in the United States. According to the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each year smoking-related illnesses kill more than 400,000 Americans, exceeding the combined deaths caused by automobile accidents, AIDS, alcohol use, illegal drug use, homicide, suicide and fires. Smoking-related illnesses account for one of every five deaths each year in the United States. 55. At least 43 chemicals in the smoke inhaled by persons using the Tobacco Companies' products have been determined to be carcinogenic. Cigarette smoking causes as much as 85% of all lung cancer. Tobacco products are also linked to cancers of the mouth, larynx, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, uterus, cervix, kidney and colon, among others. All told, tobacco use is responsible for at least 30% of all deaths from cancer. Smoking is the cause of more than 80% of deaths from pulmonary diseases such as emphysema and bronchitis. Smoking is also responsible for thousands of deaths from cardiovascular diseases, including stroke, heart attack, peripheral vascular disease and aortic aneurysm. Tobacco use is also linked to a large number of other serious illnesses. 56. The health consequences of smoking among women are c,f special concern because of the deleterious effect on reproduction. Smoking reduces fertility, increases the rate of miscarriages and stillbirths, retards uterine fetal growth and results in lower birth weight in infants. OR IV -R co W co FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC \0 I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 .t~ SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I01-3299 zo6-447-44~ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 21 snwa 37 01
Page 40: ntd78c00
1 2 9 10 11 12 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 88. The Tobacco Companies sponsored cigarette ads in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association ("JAMA") and The Lancet from the 1930s through the 1950s. 89. For years, Philip Morris made various claims that its cigarettes were less irritating than other brands. An advertisement in a 1943 issue of the National Medical Journal urged: "Don't smoke is hard advice for patients to swallow. May we suggest instead 'Smoke Philip Morris?' Tests showed three out of every four cases of smokers' cough cleared on changing to Philip Morris. Why not observe the results for yourself?" Another Philip Morris ad published in JAMA in 1949 averred: "Why many leading nose and throat specialists suggest, 'Change to Philip Morris! ..."' 90. Other companies employed different marketing techniques aimed at physicians. For example, Camel cigarettes paid tribute to medical pioneers and concluded: "Experience is the best teacher...[e]xperience is the best teacher in cigarettes, too." Old Gold reacted to early negative medical studies with the slogan: "If pleasure's your aim, not medical claim. ..." E. The Tobacco Companies' Conspiracy Began in Earnest In Order To Counter A Public Health "Scare" Over Tobacco 91. The conspiracy and combination among the Tobacco Companies was formed no later than the early 1950s in response to the release of information about scientific research linking health hazards to tobacco use. 92. The Tobacco Companies knew well before the 1950s that tobacco use was deadly. However, in 1952, Sir Richard Doll, an eminent British epidemiologist, issued a report stating that lung cancer was more common among people who smoked and that the risk of lung cancer was directly proportional to the number of cigarettes smoked. Brown & Williamson and the other Tobacco Companies were aware of the implications of this research. Indeed, a Brown & Williamson FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98I0I-3299 xo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLATNT- 32 50008197 01
Page 41: ntd78c00
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 credibility derived from these and other ostensibly disinterested industry-funded research organizations to suppress and/or misrepresent material facts about the effects of tobacco use to the public. Although they had knowledge of the serious health dangers inherent in the use of their products, including the addictiveness of nicotine, Defendants have complemented the above scheme by constructing and disseminating the fallacious argument that (i) there is insufficient "objective" research to determine whether the use of tobacco products causes disease and death and (ii) tobacco products are not addictive. 71. The Defendants' interconnected and conspiratorial strategies - suppressing material information, misrepresenting the facts about the harmful effects of smoking, using the credibility gained by such misrepresentations to deceive Congress, regulators, the public, the health care industry, and health and benefit payers, including the BC/BS Plans, about smoking and health, and restraining trade and competition by agreeing not to compete in the research, development and marketing of a less harmful cigarette - have been repeated continuously for more than four decades. Defendants have been and are engaged in a continuous conspiracy to deceive Congress, regulators, the public, the health care industry, and health and benefit payers, including the BCBS Plans, regarding facts material to reaching an informed understanding of the health consequences of smoking and to deciding whether to purchase and use tobacco products. 72. Moreover, as confidential industry research confirmed the dangers of using tobacco products, including the addictiveness of nicotine, Defendants' deception rose to a new level. Although promising the public that they would make full disclosure of the results of their research, Defendants concealed their own negative health and addiction research results from Congress, regulators, the public, public health officials, the health care industry, and health and benefit payers, FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I i I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 98ID2-319g za6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 26 sa0o81s1 0I
Page 42: ntd78c00
F. The Tobacco Companies Undertook a Duty To Investigate and Tell the Truth About the Adverse Effects of Smoking, But Repeatedly Lied to the Public and Governmental Agencies, Breaching This Duty 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 101. On January 4, 1954, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, American Tobacco, Lorillard and U.S. Tobacco, in furtherance of their conspiracy, organized and became members of the "Tobacco Industry Research Committee" ("TIRC"). Liggett became a member in 1964 at the same time the TIRC changed its name to the Council for Tobacco Research ("CTR"), one of the Defendants in this action. Similar "research" groups were formed in other countries. TIRC, CTR, and the other "research" groups were not true research groups; they merely used propaganda and public relations techniques to advance the Tobacco Companies' false claims that there was no known connection linking the use of tobacco products and nicotine consumption with disease. 102. On that same day, those Tobacco Companies (American Tobacco, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and U.S. Tobacco) announced the formation of TIRC in a statement deceptively entitled "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers." These defendants published the statement in newspapers in virtually every city with a population of 50,000 or more, reaching more than 43 million Americans out of a population at that time of approximately 150 million. The advertisement explicitly and specifically stated in part: a. "Recent reports on experiments with mice have given wide publicity to a theory that cigarette smoking is in some way linked with lung cancer in human beings." FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 36 suaos1s7oi
Page 43: ntd78c00
2 3 4 6 7 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 competing with each other in making or developing less harmful cigarettes; (b) continue knowingly and willfully to engage in misrepresentations and deceptive acts by, among other things, denying knowledge that cigarettes caused disease and death and agreeing not to disseminate harmful information showing the destructive effects of nicotine and tobacco consumption; (c) shut down research efforts and suppress medical information that appeared to be adverse to the Tobacco Companies' position that tobacco was not harmful; (d) not compete with respect to making any claims relating to the relative health-superiority of specific tobacco products; and (e) confuse the public about, and otherwise distort, whatever accurate information about the harmful effects of their products became known despite their conspiracy of deceit. Throughout the course of this conspiracy, the Tobacco Companies fraudulently promised the public and those involved in financing health care, including the BC/BS Plans, that they would accept paramount responsibility for the health of smokers, would fund independent research in an honest effort to discover the objective truth about the effects of smoking and chewing tobacco, and would disclose all information about smoking and health. 97. Defendant Hill and Knowlton, a public relations company, coordinated and later prepared a memorandum summarizing the meeting. According to the memorandum, each of the company presidents attending the meeting emphasized that he considered the program to be a`9ong term one," and that the meeting participants were "emphatic in saying that the entire activity is a long-term, continuing program." 98. As stated in the Hill and Knowlton memorandum, the participants at this meeting recognized that "their own advertising and competitive practices have been a principal factor in creating a health problem," and that their agreement to "do something about it," might "very clearly FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHmcmxgSxol-3agq z06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 34 5000B187 01
Page 44: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 83. These health-claim advertising campaigns were disseminated nationally in popular magazines, as well as on radio and television, and were calculated to persuade non-smokers to begin smoking and to persuade smokers to continue their use of products already causing them harm and injury. These campaigns were materially false and misleading. 84. There are numerous other examples of the Tobacco Companies' materially deceptive campaigns. In 1952, Liggett conducted a test for advertising purposes to demonstrate the absence of harmful effects of smoking Chesterfield cigarettes on the nose, throat and affected organs. The tests were designed to have no real scientific value. Nonetheless, the test's rigged conclusion that smoking Chesterfield cigarettes had no harmful effect on the stated organs was widely publicized, and the purported results were used by Liggett to assure the general public that smoking Chesterfield cigarettes was harmless. 85. During the 1950s, Liggett sponsored the nationally popular Arthur Godfrey radio and television show wherein health claims were made based on alleged scientific studies assuring that "smoking Chesterfields would have no adverse effects on the throat, sinuses or affected organs." 86. Earlier consumer-oriented ads from the 1930s and 1940s often spouted wide-ranging medical claims that depicted physicians holding cigarettes in the company of endorsers including Santa Claus ("Luckies are easy on my throat"), movie stars, sports heroes and circus stars. Similar ads even appeared in medical journals, targeted directly to physicians. One, for example, touted the Camel cigarette booth at the American Medical Association's 1942 Annual Meeting. 87. Chesterfield cigarette ads begun running in the New York State Journal of Medicine as early as 1933. The ads carried claims such as "Just as pure as the water you drink... and practically untouched by human hands." FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC t t i i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEA fTIE, WASHWCTON981oi"3z99 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 31 eaoosisooi
Page 45: ntd78c00
7 8 9 10 II 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 review of published statistical research, including the 1952 report by Doll, noted that the studies offered "`frightening testimony' from epidemiology studies." 93. In December 1953, Dr. Ernest Wynder of the Sloan-Kettering Institute published a report confirming that cigarettes cause cancer, based on experiments in which the skin of mice had been painted with residues of cigarette smoke. Dr. Wynder's report represented an experimental confirmation of earlier epidemiological studies linking tobacco with cancer. Following publication of the Wynder study, sales of tobacco products and prices of tobacco stocks fell. These events provoked an immediate response by the Tobacco Companies. 94. On December 14, 1953, Brown & Williamson President Timothy V. Hartnett circulated a memorandum to the other Tobacco Companies proposing that in response to the "health issue," the Tobacco Companies should (a) assist "scientific research," with a group decision in advance about "how to handle significantly negative research results if, as, and when they develop" and (b) carry out the best public relations campaign ever. Hartnett noted that no public relations firm "ha[d] ever been handed so real and yet so delicate a multimillion dollar problem." 95. The next day, the presidents of Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, American Tobacco, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard and U.S. Tobacco met at the Plaza Hotel in New York City. This meeting was unprecedented because the participants had been previously subject to the terms of an earlier dissolution decree and found guilty of price-fixing. 96. At the meeting, six of the Tobacco Companies conspired and agreed on the strategy to deal with the "health issue" - a strategy they have followed to this day. The strategy involved carrying out an illegal, fraudulent conspiracy involving violation of antitrust laws and other wrongdoing, as described in detail herein. Among other things, these defendants agreed to (a) stop FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98x01-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT-33 SOOOSIB] 01
Page 46: ntd78c00
1 2 7 8 9 15 16 W S TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. NATURE OF THIS ACTION .................................................................................................... ....................................1 A. Summary ofPlaint:ffs' Claims.......---° ..........................._..........................................._................... .....1 B. Nature of Plainttffs' Business .................................................................................................... ..... ......... 6 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE .................................................................................................... ................................9 HI. THE PARTIES .................................................................................................... .......................................................10 A. Plaint~s .................................................................................................... .............................................10 B. Defendants .................................................................................................... ....................................... .17 IV. THE DEFENDANTS' CONSPIRACY .................................................................................................... .................21 A. The Health Consequences of Tobacco ...................................................................................................1 1 B. The Concentration of the Indus ay .................................................................................................... ..... 23 C. Overview ofDefendanis' Wrongful Conduct And Conspiracy ...............................................-..--..-........ 25 D. The Tobacco Companies' Ongoing Public Deception About Smoking and Health ............................... 29 E. The Tobacco Companies' Conspiracy Began in Earnest In Order To Counter A Public Health ..Scare " Over Tobacco .................................................................................................... ...................... 32 F The Tobacco Companies Undertook a Duty To Investigate and Tell the Truth About the Adverse Effects of Smoking, But Repeatedly Lied to the Public and Governmental Agencies, Breaching This Duty ........ .................... .............. _...... ............................................................................ .......36 G. Defendants Knew for at Least Four Decades That Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products Were Deadly and Addictive and that Tobacco Products and Defendants' Wrongful Conduct Would Increase Plaint~s' Health Care Costs .......... .............................. .............................. ...... ..•.••.•~42 H. TIRC and CTR Were Tobacco Industry Propaganda Ou~fts, Fraudulently Presented as "Independent"Scientifc Research Councils that in Reality Were Controlled by the Tobacco Companies and Used in Furtherance of the Conspiracy................................................-..-..-••-.••••....-. ~50 1. Defendants Fraudulently Hid, Concealed, and Destroyed Research ......................... _.......................... 56 J Defendants Misrepresented Health Claims....................................-........-.....-..---...---....-..........-............ 59 K. The Conspiracy To Suppress Research and Product Development of Less Harntfid or Less- 65 Addictive Tobacco Products ..................... ......................................... ...................... .............................. L Suppression ofLess Harmful Cigarettes Pursuant to the Conspiracy .................................................. 70 M. Defendants Manipulated Nicotine To Assure Addiction ......................................................--...----..-.. ---. 74 N Defendants Continue to Fraudulently Conceal Their Manipulation ofNicotine ................................... 79 - FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC [ I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98IaI-3299 ao6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - iv 5W0818701
Page 47: ntd78c00
12 13 14 21 22 23 24 25 26 j• "This statement is being issued because we believe the people are entitled to know where we stand on this matter and what we intend to do about it." 103. Shortly after creating the TIRC, the member cigarette manufacturers made an unambiguous pledge to the public. Liggett joined in this pledge in 1964 when it joined the TIRC. The Tobacco Companies represented that they would, through the TIRC, conduct and report objective and unbiased research regarding smoking and health. When they made this representation, the Defendants knew or should have known that consumers and others throughout the country would consider the representation material to their decisions to purchase and smoke cigarettes. Defendants knew or should have known that health care payers and similar organizations, including the BC/BS Plans, would rely upon their statements. Similarly, Defendants also knew or should have known that responsible governmental agencies and authorities would fail to take or delay taking public health measures they otherwise would have taken had Defendants fulfilled their pledge. At that time, and continuing to the present, Defendants knew that their failure to fulfiIl the duty they undertook, and their other conduct as alleged herein, would result in increased health care costs to health care payers, including the BCBS Plans. Indeed, one of the purposes of Defendants' conduct was to distort and manipulate the health care market in order to deflect responsibility and financial obligations from themselves to others, including the BCBS Plans. 104. Defendants' undertakings in the "Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" were recognized as creating responsibility at the time that Statement was made. A Hill and Knowlton report to the TIRC, dated April 28, 1955, admitted the special responsibility of TIRC and the Tobacco Companies: FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC [ I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTONg8IO2-3399 aa6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 38 Sptp818701
Page 48: ntd78c00
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 G. Defendants Knew for at Least Four Decades That Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products Were Deadly and Addictive and that Tobacco Products and Defendants' Wrongful Conduct Would Increase Plaintiffs' Health Care Costs 114. Despite Defendants' continued statements that it has not been proven that cigarettes are deadly or addictive, secret internal company documents only released to the public in the past year or so show that Defendants have known all along that tobacco causes disease and death and that it is addictive. Moreover, Defendants used their so-called research councils to propagate their misrepresentations. Recently released, secret internal documents show that the Tobacco Companies were aware from the outset that they could not reveal their knowledge that their products were unsafe, nor could they develop less harmful alternatives without, in effect, indicting their own industry. 115. These documents indicate that, in 1958, three representatives of BATCO met during a month-long trip to the United States with over twenty American scientists and researchers, including at least nine representatives of the U.S. tobacco industry and the Scientific Advisory Board of TIRC. The BATCO representatives stated that all of the tobacco company researchers with whom they met (and all but one of the outside people) "believed that smoking causes lung cancer." 116. They also found "general acceptance of the view that the most likely means of causation is that tobacco smoke contains carcinogenic substances present in sufficient quantity to promote lung cancer when acting for a long time in a sensitive individual." 117. Defendants have known for almost four decades, if not longer, that people continue to smoke because they are addicted. Recently disclosed documents concerning BATCO's "Project Hippo" indicate that, at least as early as 1961, the Tobacco Companies knew of the physiological and pharmacological effects of nicotine. Project Hippo reports were circulated to TIRC, BATCO, FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I II I THIfIO AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHmcTON98mc-;z99 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 42 SDDDBIB) DI
Page 49: ntd78c00
smoking and health controversy remains unresolved. The net result of all of this effort has been that no causal link between smoking and disease has been established. That is not merely the opinion of Tobacco Industry executives. That is scientific fact readily available to anyone willing to make an objective, unemotional study of the existing evidence. 5 lI 12 13 14 15 22 23 24 25 26 111, An R.J. Reynolds executive wrote the following to a grade school principal in 1990, in response to a letter from fifth-graders: Despite all the research going on, the simple and unfortunate fact is that scientists do not know the cause or causes of the chronic diseases reported to be associated with smoking.... We would appreciate your passing this information along to your students. 112. To this day, Defendants continue this deception and, unless enjoined, this deception will continue. In March 1998, Geoffrey Bible, the Chairman and CEO of Philip Morris, stated under oath before a committee of the U.S. Senate that he does not believe that people die from smoking. Bible subsequently stated in open court that his company has a duty to inform the public of the risks of smoking, to make as safe a product as it possibly can, and to tell consumers what it knows about the risks of its products, and that his company should be held accountable if it violated any one of those duties. Philip Morris has in fact violated all of these duties. 113. Mr. Bible's statements were false and designed to deceive. Bible knew at the time he made those statements that the Tobacco Companies (including Philip Morris) have in fact known and admitted in their internal records that smoking causes cancer and other diseases, but Philip Morris and the other Tobacco Companies continue to claim falsely that they do not know whether smoking does so. 4~- FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3199 zo6-447•4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 41 5OWS1 87 01
Page 50: ntd78c00
4 5 6 7 8 9 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The American Tobacco Company, which was succeeded by four large firms: Liggett, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard and American Tobacco, plus many smaller firms. 81. Cigarette smoking increased dramatically in the first half of the 20th century, followed by an increase in incidences of lung and other cancers and diseases. As a result, issues concerning the health effects associated with smoking cigarettes began to arise. In a 1946 letter from a Lorillard chemist to its manufacturing committee, it was reported that: "Certain scientists and medical authorities have claimed for many years that the use of tobacco contributes to cancer development in susceptible people. Just enough evidence has been presented to justify the possibility of such a presumption." Similarly, in 1945, Dr. Alton Ochsner, a New Orleans surgeon and regional medical director of the American Cancer Society, told an audience at Duke University that "there is a distinct parallelism between the incidence of cancer of the lung and the sale of cigarettes ...[that] the increase is due to the increased incidence of smoking and that smoking is a factor because of the chronic irritation it produces." 82. In response to such medical concerns about smoking, the Tobacco Companies through industry spokesmen dismissed such reports as "the health scare." The Tobacco Companies also engaged in advertising campaigns to induce the public to believe that cigarette smoking was actually beneficial to one's health. The Tobacco Companies made express claims and warranties as to the healthfulness of their products with reckless disregard to the falsity of their claims and the consequential adverse impact on consumers. Examples of their health warranties include the following: Old Gold, "Not a cough in a carload"; Camel, "Not one single case of throat irritation due to smoking Camel"; Philip Morris, "The Throat-tested cigarette." Brown and Williamson also claimed that Kool cigarettes would keep the head clear and/or provide protection against colds. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i i i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98ia1-3299 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 30 5W00187 01
Page 51: ntd78c00
factor plays a causative role - or whether such a role might be direct or 7 8 16 22 23 24 25 26 indirect, incidental or important." d. "We shall continue all possible efforts to bring the facts to light." 107. Similarly, on June 25, 1964, Bowman Gray, R.J. Reynolds's Chairman of the Board and a spokesman for the tobacco industry, testified before a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives that TIRC was free and independent and that it had found nothing injurious in cigarettes, but that, if it did, TIRC would bring it out. 108. In 1970, at the direction of the other Defendants, TIRC placed advertisements throughout the United States in which it again falsely claimed that there was no known link between cigarettes and disease, despite decades of "totally independent research." The Tobacco Institute further stated: "The tobacco industry recognizes and accepts a responsibility to promote the progress of independent scientific research in the field of tobacco and health." 109. On January 3, 1971, Joseph F. Cullman, III, Chairman of Philip Morris, stated on a nationally televised broadcast that: We are also very concerned about the charges levelled against our product, and we are very anxious to do whatever we can to clear the air in this matter. We happen to be optimistic about the future, and we happen to feel that this is a great industry, and that this industry can face the future with confidence because when, as, and if any ingredient in cigarette smoke is identified as being injurious to human health, we are confident that we can eliminate that ingredient. 110. In 1982, Edward A. Horrigan, Jr., then Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Tobacco Institute, publicly stated: After three decades of investigation and millions of dollars invested by the government, the Tobacco Industry and private organizations, the FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9 8 2 01-3 2 99 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 40 50009187 01
Page 52: ntd78c00
1 2 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 26 including the BCBS Plans. These research results have not been voluntarily released to this day. Defendants also have not disclosed, and in fact have denied, that the Tobacco Companies manipulate and control the content and delivery of nicotine in their products to create and sustain consumers' addiction to tobacco products. Defendants have further conspired to suppress the development, testing and marketing of less harmful cigarettes, while fraudulently maintaining that their products are safe or that there are no less harmful alternatives to their products. Defendants also have conspired to discredit or cast doubt upon the results of legitimate and accurate scientific research and findings confirming the negative health effects ofnicotine and tobacco use. 73. The success of the Tobacco Companies' campaign of deceit, concealment and misinformation has depended, in large part, on Defendants' acting in concert. Without the agreement of each of the Tobacco Companies to suppress the truth about the health consequences and addictive nature of using tobacco products, the deception that the joint industry research efforts were objective would have been revealed and the claim that "not enough facts are known" to indict the use of the products would have been roundly rejected. Defendants agreed to come and stay together in order to accomplish what would not otherwise have occurred - the unified and consistent dissemination of false information and the distortion of public information about the use of tobacco products and their impact on health and addiction. Similarly, the strategy of restraining competition by refraining from producing and marketing less harmful products arose from Defendants' conspiratorial and concerted action. 74. Defendants were aware that unless they took the actions they agreed to take and subsequently took, the volume of tobacco product sales would have substantially decreased, and the size of their profits would have diminished substantially. Defendants were also aware that if they FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I II THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98ICI-3299 xo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 27 S000H187 01
Page 53: ntd78c00
11 12 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 quickly and effectively, the free lance services of qualified science writers are being used." 141. This report was sent with a cover letter indicating that the report was "highly confidential" and warning that "no additional copies be made and that this copy not be placed in files." 142. On July 31, 1954, Hill and Knowlton wrote a confidential report concerning TIRC's success in turning around the perception that cigarettes caused disease: A FORWARD LOOK Although the Industry has been bedeviled by sensational headlines generated often by publicity seeking researchers and a seeming revival of the anti-cigarette crusade, the trend is beginning to turn. In 1953, no voice was being raised in behalf of the industry. Press comment was almost entirely limited to a reflection of unproven theories which most people were accepting as proven facts. No balancing information was being made available, The progress of the [TIRC]'s program is bringing greater acceptance of the Industry's sincere efforts. The publicity accompanying each step taken so far by the [TIRC], particularly since the selection of the Scientific Director and the Scientific Advisory Board, has helped bring understanding that the charges against tobacco are not proven and are not joined in by a large body of scientific ~ IV - FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98xo:-3a99 ao6-447-440n FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 52 !000818) 01
Page 54: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 11 12 b. "Although conducted by doctors of professional standing, these experiments are not regarded as conclusive in the field of cancer research." c. "That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes" of lung cancer. d. "We accept an interest in people's health as a basic responsibility, paramount to every other consideration in our business." e. "We believe the products we make are not injurious to health." f. "We always have and always will cooperate closely with those whose task it is to safeguard the public health." g- "We are pledging aid and assistance to the research effort into all phases of tobacco use and health °" h. "For this purpose we are establishing a joint industry group consisting initially of the undersigned. This group will be known as TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE." i. "In charge of the research activities of the Committee will be a scientist of unimpeachable integrity and national repute. In addition, there will be an Advisory Board of scientists disinterested in the cigarette industry." 0 26 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98I0i-3299 206-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 37 5W0818]01
Page 55: ntd78c00
opinion. The bulk of editorial comment now appearing approves and, at times, applauds the action of the industry. 143. Another Hill and Knowlton memorandum describing projects from August through September 1954 indicated that TIRC's Scientific Director and Chairman met with publishers and repeated the promise that the Tobacco Companies intended to support a "long-range ... research program devoted primarily to the public interest." This statement was made to publishers, presidents, or board chairmen of the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, Scripps- Howard Newspapers, Hearst Consolidated Publications, and Luce Publications. 144. The memorandum describes how TIRC influenced television shows: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A conference was held with Edward R. Murrow, Fred Friendly, his producer. ..., at the [TIRC] offices in the Empire State Building .... The Murrow staff emphasized the intention to present a coldly objective program with every effort made to tell the story as it stands today, with special effort toward balanced perspective and concrete steps to show that the facts still are not established and must be sought by scientific means such as the research activities the [TIRC] will support. Mr. Murrow was assured of continued cooperation from the [TIRC] to the extent possible under the scope of the TIRC program. 145. On April 28, 1955, Hill and Knowlton wrote a confidential "Public Relations Report" to the TIRC. The report found that after a year of intensive public relations activities "progress has been made": The first "big scare" continues on the wane. There is much general awareness of the big IF factors involved.... Treatment of the cigarette-health issue in public media continues to improve from the Tobacco Industry Research Committee point of view. Even adverse stories now tend to carry modifying statements. Positive stories are on the ascendancy. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 98I0I'3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 53 lMB16'I01
Page 56: ntd78c00
5 6 15 16 b. Hill and Knowlton helped select the Scientific Advisory Board, "proposed" the Scientific Director, and "handled liaison, agendas, organizational plans, business affairs, reports, and materials for meetings of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee [and] the Scientific Advisory Board, . . . in addition to developing operating procedures for the research program." c. Hill and Knowlton used TIRC to mislead the public, rather than to discover and bring the truth to light. In essence, TIRC publicized any favorable studies and buried any unfavorable ones. d. TIRC transformed an obscure scientific report favorable to the Tobacco Companies into national headline news and used other efforts to influence and bias the media's treatment of the issues about smoking and health. Apparently, on information and belief, TIRC ghost-scripted ostensibly objective news stories, e. In many instances, TIRC worked behind the scenes to influence the content of individual articles. In one case, TIRC's intervention resulted in extensive revisions to a story in Cosmopolitan that had already been set in type. f Freelance authors were hired to write favorable articles for TIRC: "Especially-written articles are being developed that can be used or adapted for use in various media receptive to or seeking material relating to the subject.... To achieve this objective more FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THI0.0 AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9$I0I-j299 so6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 51 50000187 01
Page 57: ntd78c00
1 2 3 a. One research executive "thought we should adopt the attitude that the causal link between smoking and lung cancer was proven because then at least we could not be any worse off." b. Another researcher stated: [N]o industry was going to accept that its product was toxic, or even believe it to be so, and naturally when the health question was first raised we had to start denying it at the P.R. level. But by continuing that policy we had got ourselves into a comer and left no room to manoeuvre. In other words if we get a break through and were able to improve our product we should have to about-face, and this was practically impossible at the P.R. level. c. The chairman of Brown & Williamson's British affiliate stated: 11 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [It] was very difficult when you were asked, as Chairman of a Tobacco Company, to discuss the health question on television. You had not only your own business to consider but the employees throughout the industry, retailers, consumers, farmers growing the leaf, and so on, and you were in much too responsible a position to get up and say: "I accept that the product which we and all our competitors are putting on the market gives you lung cancer", whatever you might think privately. d. The chairman also stated that if the company manufactured safer brands, "how to justify continuing the sale of other brands? ... it would be admitting that some of its products already on the market might be harmful. This would create a very difficult public relations situation." e. Addison Yeaman, then General Counsel, suggested that Brown & Williamson "accept its responsibility" and disclose the hazards of cigarettes to the Surgeon General. He noted that this would allow the company to research and develop openly a "safer cigarette." FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 $E4TTLE, WASHINGTON 96I0I"3299 2o6-447-4400 om m FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 47 50008167 01
Page 58: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 13 14 21 22 23 24 25 26 that of Plaintiffs, and public access to these facts is and was limited because such facts are and have been exclusively within Defendants' control. H. TIRC and CTR Were Tobacco Industry Propaganda Outfits, Fraudulently Presented as "Independent" Scientific Research Councils that in Reality Were Controlled by the Tobacco Companies and Used in Furtherance of the Conspiracy 139. To convince the public that they would use their best efforts to conduct independent and scientific research to determine and disclose the truth about the effects of smoking on health, the Tobacco Companies created the TIRC and CTR and stated that their activities would be objective, independent, and unbiased. But from the very beginning, industry documents show, these groups were neither independent, scientific, nor objective. Instead, they were front groups for the Tobacco Companies whose sole objective was to conduct a campaign of deceit, misrepresentation and misinformation directed at misleading the public about the health risks of smoking. 140. A Hill and Knowlton report to TIRC's chairman, entitled "Report of Activities Through 1954," stated: a. TIRC was not independent and was not run by scientists, but was run by Hill and Knowlton: "Since the Committee had no headquarters and no staff, Hill and Knowlton, Inc. was asked to provide a working staff and temporary office space. As a first organizational step, public relations counsel assigned one of its experienced executives, W.T. Hoyt, to serve as account executive and handle as one of his functions the duties of executive secretary for the Tobacco Industry Research Council." FOSTER PEPPER t`3 SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3Z99 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 50 saoosie7 oi
Page 59: ntd78c00
I 2 7 heavy cigarette smoking contributes to lung cancer either alone or in association with physical and physiological factors." 125. A 1961 confidential document presented to the Philip Morris Research and Development Committee by the company's Vice President of Research and Development included a section entitled "Reduction of Carcinogens in Smoke," stating in part as follows: To achieve this objective will require a major research effort, because Carcinogens are found in practically every class of compounds in smoke. This fact prohibits complete solution of the problem by eliminating one or two classes of compounds. The best we can hope for is to reduce a particularly bad class, i.e., the polynuclear hydrocarbons, or phenols.. . . Flavor substances and carcinogenic substances come from the same classes, in many instances. 126. A 1961 confidential memorandum from a research consulting firm hired by Liggett stated that cigarette tobacco contains "biologically active materials" that are cancer causing, cancer promoting, poisonous, stimulating, pleasurable and flavorful. 127. A 1963 confidential memorandum from the Liggett consulting research firm stated: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Basically we accept the inference of a causal relationship between the chemical properties of ingested tobacco smoke and the development of carcinoma, which is suggested by the statistical association shown in the studies of Doll and Hill, Horn, and Dorn with some reservations and qualifications and even estimate by how much the incidence of cancer may possibly be reduced if the carcinogenic matter can be diminished, by an appropriate filter, by a given percentage. 128. Liggett withheld this information from the public, the health care industry, and health benefit payers, including the BC/BS Plans, by presenting to the U.S. Surgeon General, in 1963, a report that focused on alternative causes of disease (such as air pollution, coffee, alcohol, diet, lack FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE;4o0 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9$IUI-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 45 50008189 01
Page 60: ntd78c00
1 2 3 9 10 16 17 18 25 26 146. Many other confidential internal company documents indicate awareness that the so- called "research" councils were intended not to find out and provide the truth or objective facts, but to play a propaganda and public relations role, as the following examples demonstrate: a. "CTR began as an organization called Tobacco Industry Research Council (TIRC). It was set up as an industry shield in 1954. That was the year statistical accusations relating smoking to diseases were leveled at the Industry; litigation began; and the Wynder/Graham reports were issued. CTR has helped our legal counsel by giving advice and technical information, which was needed at court trials.... [T]he public relations value of CTR must be considered and continued. ... It is very important the industry continue to spend their dollars on research to show that we don't agree that the case against smoking is closed." b. "CTR is [the] best & cheapest insurance the Tobacco Industry can buy and without it, the Industry would have to invent CTR or would be dead." c. "Historically, the joint industry funded smoking and health research programs have not been selected against specific scientific goals, but rather for various purposes such as public relations, political relations, position for litigation, etc.... In general, these programs have provided some buffer to public and political FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 54 5C4ofl18] 01
Page 61: ntd78c00
I 7 of exercise and genetics) and that criticized the alleged statistical association between smoking and diseases as "unreliably conducted" and "inadequately analyzed." The Liggett report concluded that the association between smoking and disease was inconclusive and was in fact due to other factors coincidentally associated with smoking. 129. A 1963 confidential memorandum to Philip Morris's President and CEO from the company's Vice President of Research describes components of cigarette smoke as "known carcinogens" and identifies a link between smoking and bronchitis and emphysema: Irritation problems are now receiving greater attention because of the general medical belief that irritation leads to chronic bronchitis and emphysema. These are serious diseases involving millions of people. Emphysema is often fatal either directly or through other respiratory complications. A number of experts have predicted that the cigarette industry ultimately may be in greater trouble in this area than in the lung cancer field. 14 15 16 23 24 25 26 130. Brown & Williamson and its parent company BATCO researched the health effects of nicotine and were aware early on, as reported at a B.A.T. Group Research Conference in November 1970, that "nicotine may be implicated in the etiology [cause] of cardiovascular disease." 131. As early as 1962, Defendants recognized that they had to misrepresent what they knew about smoking and health and that they could not afford to d;.velop a less harmful cigarette because to do so would indict their own products, causing the Tobacco Companies to be liable for health care costs associated with tobacco use. 132. That same year, Brown & Williamson's London-based parent company conducted a meeting of its worldwide subsidiaries in Southampton, England. A transcript of the meeting reveals the following regarding the health effects of smoking: FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON y$ioi-3z9g i06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 46 moOe1e a1
Page 62: ntd78c00
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 approach, the take it on the chin and keep quiet attitude, to the strongly voiced opposition and criticism. I personally think this counter-propaganda is a better stance than the former one." 136. Similarly, BATCO's internal view of the validity of mouse skin painting experiments differed markedly from the view expressed in public statements. Minutes from a confidential 1969 research conference stated: "Historically, bioassay experiments were undertaken by the Industry with the object of clarifying the role of smoke constituents in pulmonary carcinogensis. The most widely used of these methods [was] mouse-skin painting.... In the foreseeable future, say five years, mouse-skin painting would remain as the ultimate court of appeal on carcinogenic effects." Two years later, a Brown & Williamson public relations document stated: "Much of the experimental work involves mouse-painting or animal smoke inhalation experiments. ...[T]he results obtained on the skin of mice should not be extrapolated to the lung tissue of the mouse, or to any other animal species. Certainly such skin results should not be extrapolated to the human lung." 137. Notwithstanding the depth of knowledge held by the Defendants and their own certainty that smoking caused disease and death, they also understood that their deceptive public pronouncements had succeeded in defrauding the public, despite the warnings they had been required by law to give. For example, in an internal 1978 memorandum, Brown & Williamson acknowledged that "very few consumers are aware of the effects of nicotine, i.e., its addictive nature and that nicotine is a poison." Defendants' disinformation and propaganda had, as intended by them, greatly reduced the impact of the limited information they were required by law to disclose or other, similar information provided by others. 138. Because of the Tobacco Companies' secret internal research, Defendants' knowledge regarding the dangerous and deadly effect of smoking and chewing tobacco is and was superior to FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I i I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE. WASNINGTON98IQI-3199 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 49 50008I87 01
Page 63: ntd78c00
5 6 14 15 16 17 26 for a number of cigarette manufacturers, and some of this research was shared with these other companies and TIRC. Brown & Williamson's use of the code name "ZEPHYR" to refer to cancer helped suppress its confidential findings that there is a "causal relationship" between "ZEPHYR and tobacco smoking." 149. In the late 1960s, R.J. Reynolds had a state-of-the-art laboratory in Winston-Salem, nicknamed "the mouse house." There, scientists conducted research with mice, rats, and rabbits and began to uncover promising avenues of investigation into the mechanisms of nicotine-related diseases. One day in 1970, this entire research division was disbanded and all 26 scientists were fired without notice. R.J. Reynolds's in-house attorneys had collected dozens of research notebooks from the biochemists several months before the firings. These research notebooks remain undisclosed. 150. In the early 1980s, researchers working at a Philip Morris laboratory in Richmond further confirmed the addictive nature of nicotine and worked to develop a synthetic form of nicotine that would avoid its cardiovascular complications. The research was conducted by Victor J. DeNoble and his colleague Paul C. Mele. The research was so secretive that laboratory animals were brought in at night under cover. 151. The researchers discovered that nicotine demonstrated addictive qualities and that the animals self-administered the substance by pressing levers to obtain nicotine. The synthetic or artificial forms of nicotine or nicotine analogues under research affected the brain much like nicotine, without the harmful cardiovascular effects of nicotine or tobacco. Rats using the analogue behaved as though they had a nicotine "high," but did not show signs of heart distress, such as rapid heart beat. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I i THIRD AVENUE, $UITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98LOI-3299 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 57 5W0818Y01
Page 64: ntd78c00
The Tobacco Industry Research Committee first appeared before the public with an assurance that the industry itself would assume leadership in research into all aspects of tobacco use and health.... This brings with it a greater responsibility to the press and the public. The T.LR.C. will have to live up to the expectations it has created on two fronts: 6 22 23 24 25 26 First, by pushing ahead sound, but steadily to get at the facts.... Second, to report to the public where it stands in the search for the desired information about cancer.. . . 105. Throughout the years, Defendants have many times repeated the promises and statements made in the "Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers." 106. For example, the Tobacco Institute later published "A Statement About Tobacco and Health," which stated in part: a. "We recognize that we have a special responsibility to the public - to help scientists determine the facts about tobacco and health, and about certain diseases that have been associated with tobacco use." b. "We accepted this responsibility in 1954 by establishing the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, which provides research grants to independent scientists. We pledge continued support of this program of research until all the facts are known." ao N c. "Scientific advisors inform us that until much more is -r~ 00 w known about such diseases as lung cancer, medical science probably ~o ~ will not be able to determine whether tobacco or any other single tV FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 982aI-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 39 5000819701
Page 65: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 Il 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 167. The Tobacco Companies know that the ability to block ventilation holes allows smokers to "compensate" for nicotine losses that would otherwise be caused by tar-reducing modifications. The Tobacco Companies have studied smoker compensation in order to design cigarettes that allow smokers to compensate for lower nicotine yields. One such design feature is known as "elasticity." This refers to the ability of a cigarette, whatever its FTC measured nicotine yield, to deliver enough smoke to permit a smoker to obtain the nicotine he needs, e.g., through more or longer puffs or by covering ventilation holes. 168. Industry studies show that smokers tend to ingest close to the same amount of nicotine from each cigarette despite differences in yield as measured by the FTC smoking machine. In a 1974 BATCO conference, researchers described the result of one such study: The Kippa study in Germany suggests that whatever the characteristics of cigarettes as determined by smoking machines, the smoker adjusts his pattern to deliver his own nicotine requirements (about 0.8 mg. per cigarette). 169. Smokers' compensation to obtain adequate nicotine also results in the delivery of more tar than in the FTC test measure. 170. The use of ammonia is another method used by the Tobacco Companies to reduce the FTC-measured tar and nicotine levels in their cigarettes over the past two decades while still furnishing smokers with sufficient nicotine delivery. According to John Kreisher, a former associate scientific director for CTR, "[a]mmonia helped the industry lower the tar and allowed smokers to get more bang with less nicotine. It solved a couple of problems at the same time." 171. However, the use of the more potent "free" nicotine that ammonia helps release, as opposed to the slower acting salt-bound nicotine, also serves to increase the amount of nicotine FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINOTON98IOi'3299 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 62 500818701
Page 66: ntd78c00
I 2 3 4 5 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 i 0 160. For example, Philip Morris ads claimed that "no other popular f lter cigarette delivers less nicotine and tar." Its Viceroy cigarettes were promoted with the "health guard filter." Some of the claims included: New health guard filter makes Viceroy better for your health; new king-size Viceroy gives you double-barreled health protection. Leading N.Y. doctor tells his patients what to smoke! Filtered cigarette smoke is better for health. Prominent physician tells patients - Smoke Viceroy Filter-Tip Cigarettes. The nicotine and tars trapped by the Viceroy Filter cannot reach mouth, throat, or lungs. You can see the health guard filter discolor from nicotine and tars which might otherwise be drawn into your mouth, throat, and lungs. 161. In 1952, Lorillard introduced Kent cigarettes with the "micronite" filter. Lorillard's ads claimed: "Don't be misled by conflicting claims. ... Today as before you get less tars and nicotine in Kent than any other leading cigarette." It was represented that the micronite filter removed seven times more tar and nicotine than any other cigarette. Lorillard stated that the material in the Kent filter was developed for gas masks during the war and was at that time being used to remove radioactive particles from the air at atomic power plants. In an ad, Lorillard purportedly cited an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association: These findings - which show the effects of various types of 00 N cigarettes on the human system, and put Kent in a class all by itself 41~ where health protection is concerned - have been made available to 00 doctors. ... It is known and provable that there is only one way to W `B take the irritants out of tobacco smoke in sujjzcient quantity for the sensitive smoker. That is to take them out with a filter ...[Kent is] a W really good smoke and real protection. (Emphasis in original.) 162. In the first weeks after it was introduced, sales of Kent cigarettes greatly exceeded Lorillard's original expectations. In the early months, the biggest problem faced by the company was keeping dealers supplied. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i i c THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON9gIOi5299 206-447-4400 W FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 60 50008167 01
Page 67: ntd78c00
7 8 9 10 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC ~10 W I I II THIkD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98Ioi-3299 ~ 206-447-4400 • + 163. Between 1952 and 1957, more than a dozen different filter cigarettes were introduced. In 1952, filter cigarettes accounted for less than I percent of the market. By 1958, there were filters on more than 40 percent of cigarettes. The decline in cigarette sales of 1953 and 1954 was reversed, and by 1957 cigarette sales exceeded the 1952 record. 164. There is no evidence that low-tar/low-nicotine cigarettes provide a significant health benefit or are materially less addicting. In most instances, low-tar/low-nicotine cigarettes increase the risk of emphysema, heart disease, and other diseases caused by smoking and are just as addictive as ordinary cigarettes. This is because smokers of low-tar/low-nicotine cigarettes tend to smoke more, inhale more deeply, and hold the smoke in their lungs longer, in order to maximize their intake of nicotine. 165. Most smokers compensate for the alleged reduced nicotine delivery from filtered cigarettes by smoking more. Since the advent of filters, average daily consumption for the typical smoker has increased from 20 to 30 cigarettes. Thus, any marginally reduced lung cancer risk from most conventional filters has been achieved at the cost of a greater risk of emphysema, heart disease, stroke, and other diseases. 166. The Tobacco Companies designed their so-called "light" products so that advertised tar and nicotine labels understate the amounts of tar and nicotine actually ingested by human smokers. Such design features include a technique called filter ventilation in which nearly invisible holes are drilled in the filter paper, or the filter paper is made more porous. Predictably, many smokers of advertised low-tar and nicotine cigarettes block the tiny, laser generated perforations in ventilated filters with their fingers or lips, thereby resulting in greater tar and nicotine yields to those smokers than those measured by the FTC smoking machine. FIR3T AMENDED COMPLAINT - 61 3000818] 01
Page 68: ntd78c00
stated that the physiological effect of cigarettes is the "primary incentive; all other incentives are secondary;" "nicotine is the active constituent of cigarette smoke;" and "[w]ithout nicotine ... there would be no smoking." 121. The report goes on to ask: Why then is there not a market for nicotine per se, to be eaten, sucked, drunk, injected, inserted or inhaled as a pure aerosol? The answer, and I feel quite strongly about this, is that the cigarette is in fact among the most awe-inspiring examples of the ingenuity of man. Let me explain my conviction. The cigarette should be conceived not as a product but as a package. The product is nicotine.. . . Think of the cigarette pack as a storage container for a day's supply of nicotine.. . . 13 14 15 22 23 24 25 26 Think of the cigarette as a dispenser for a dose unit of nicotine. 122. A 1956 confidential memorandum from a Philip Morris Vice President of Research and Development to top executives at the company regarding the advantages of "ventilated cigarettes" stated: "Decreased carbon monoxide and nicotine are related to decreased harm to the circulatory system as a result of smoking.... [D]ecreased irritation is desirable ... as a partial elimination of a potential cancer hazard." 123. In a March 1957 confidential report, a Brown & Williamson affiliate conducting research for the company reported that "[als a result of several statistical surveys, the idea has arisen that there is a causal relationship between ZEPHYR and tobacco smoking, particularly cigarette smoking." "ZEPHYR" was the Brown & Williamson secret code name for cancer. 124. A 1958 confidential memorandum to a Philip Morris Vice President of Research, who later became a member of its Board of Directors, stated that "the evidence ... is building up that FOSTER PEPPER & $I-IEPELMAN PLLC [ I I[ THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 $EATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I02-3199 so6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 44 5000818"/01
Page 69: ntd78c00
1 8 9 21 22 23 24 25 26 Yeaman warned, however, that such disclosure would show jurors that the cigarette companies had known of the hazards of their products and had had the means to make safer cigarettes, but had not. Yeaman's suggestion for full disclosure was rejected. 133. In 1963, Brown & Williamson engaged in an internal debate over whether to disclose what it knew about the adverse effects of smoking to the Surgeon General, who was preparing his first official report on cigarettes. It was decided that the information would not be disclosed. Some of the documents generated by Brown & Williamson as part of this process were shared with its London-based parent company, as well as other cigarette manufacturers and the TIRC/CTR. 134. Philip Morris also concealed from the public its actual views of the research conducted outside the influence of the industry. In a 1971 memorandum, Dr. H. Wakeham, then Vice President of Research and Development, in referring to a recent study that found inhalation of cigarette smoke caused lung cancer in beagles, stated: "1970 might very properly be called the year of the beagle. Early in the year, the American Cancer Society announced that they had finally demonstrated the formation of lung cancer in beagles by smoke inhalation in the now infamous Auerbach and Hammond Study." Although Dr. Wakeham criticized the mice cancer studies, he conceded that "the beagle test was a critical one...for the cigarette causation hypothesis." 135. Dr. Wakeham's • memorandum demonstrates Philip Morris's approval of the industry's public dismissals of these independent studies: "The strong opposition of the industry to the beagle test is indicative of a new, more aggressive stance on the part of the industry in the smoking and health controversy. We have gone over from what I have called the 'vigorous denial' FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON98I0i-3299 z06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT-48 5000813701
Page 70: ntd78c00
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 0 attack of the industry, as well as background for litigious [sic] strategy ° d. "Historically, it would seem that the 1954 emergency was handled effectively. From this experience there arose a realization by the tobacco industry of a public relations problem that must be solved for the self-preservation of the industry." e. "To date, the TIRC program has carried its fair share of the public relations load in providing materials to stamp out brush fires as they arose. While effective in the past, this whole approach requires both revision and expansion. The public relations program ... was like the early symptoms of diabetes - certain dietary controls kept public opinion reasonably healthy. When some new symptom appeared, a shot of insulin in the way of a news release . . . kept the patient going." f. "When the products of an industry are accused of causing harm to users, certainly it is the obligation of that industry to endeavor to determine whether such accusations are true or false. Money spent for such purpose should not be regarded as a charitable contribution but as a business expense - an expense necessary to keep that industry alive. In view of the billions of dollars of annual sales of our industry our expenditures for health research has been of a minimal order." FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 $YATTLE, WASHINGTON 98ial-ja99 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 55 5000816"/01
Page 71: ntd78c00
0 1 2 3 4 smoking and limited sales were not taken because Defendants concealed and suppressed information that would have formed the basis for action. 176. CTR concluded in 1974: The public should be informed that based on present knowledge, cigarettes with either reduced "tar" or reduced gas vapor constituents cannot be considered safe, that is, smoking these cigarettes does not eliminate damage to health such as risk of lung cancer. 177. The public was not so informed. Despite their knowledge, the Tobacco Companies continue to market low tar/low-nicotine cigarettes as if the effects of the tar and nicotine were lowered, when they are not. K. The Conspiracy To Suppress Research and Product Development of Less Harmful or Less-Addictive Tobacco Products 12 13 14 15 16 24 25 26 178. As early as 1953, a tobacco industry research director stated: "Boy, wouldn't it be wonderful if our company was first to produce a cancer free cigarette. What we could do to competition!" Nevertheless, the Tobacco Companies recognized that the nature of the dangers posed by their products already in the market was such that a conspiracy of silence and inaction was preferable and that it was important in the words of Hill and Knowlton to "develop some understanding with companies that, on this problem, none is going to seek a competitive advantage by inferring to its public that its product is less risky than others." As a result, beginning in approximately 1953, the Tobacco Companies conspired by way of a so-called "gentlemen's agreement" to suppress independent research and development on the issue of smoking and health. 179. A 1968 internal Philip Morris draft memorandum specifically referred to the 1953 "agreement" not to compete, referring to possible violations of the "gentleman [sic] agreement" in the form of independent research by some of the major companies. The memorandum stated: "We FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I0i-3299 ~06-447-44oa FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 65 50008187 01
Page 72: ntd78c00
0 0 1 I~ g. "For nearly twenty years, this industry has employed a 7 8 9 10 11 12 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 single strategy to defend itself on three major fronts -- litigation, politics, and public opinion. While the strategy was brilliantly conceived and executed over the years helping us win important battles, it is only fair to say that it is not - nor was it intended to be - a vehicle for victory. On the contrary, it has always been a holding strategy, consisting of -- creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it." h. "In the cigarette controversy, the public - especially those who are present and potential supporters (e.g., tobacco state congressmen and heavy smokers) - must perceive, understand, and believe in evidence to sustain their opinions that smoking may not be the causal factor." 1. Defendants Fraudulently Hid, Concealed, and Destroyed Research 147. As discussed above, in many statements published in and following 1954, Defendants represented themselves as intending to discover and disclose the truth about smoking and health. Internal company documents reveal that in this period Defendants suppressed and concealed a great deal of research and information that was contrary to their public positions. 148. For example, Brown & Williamson continued to conduct and conceal biological research confirming that tobacco products cause adverse health effects. The more sensitive research was often undertaken by Brown & Williamson's British affiliate, acting on behalf of Brown & Williamson, including research at a laboratory called Harrowgate. This laboratory performed work FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, $UITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 98I0I-3199 2o6-qqyqqoo FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 56 aaa0s1e7 01
Page 73: ntd78c00
1 2 14 21 195. The Tobacco Companies were also aware that consumer demand would support less harmful products. The Tobacco Companies knew that demand had shifted to filter and low-tar/low- nicotine cigarettes in response to the positioning of these products as safer alternatives. But the Tobacco Companies knew that "the smoker of a filter cigarette [claiming reduced tar] was getting as much or more nicotine and tar as he would have gotten from a regular cigarette. He had abandoned the regular cigarette, however, on the ground of reduced risk to health." The Tobacco Companies recognized a difference between "health-oriented" cigarettes, which were never marketed on a wide basis, and "health-image" cigarettes, such as low-tar/low-nicotine products. The latter were a marketing tool intended to give the illusion of a safer product. That illusion was a lie. L. Suppression of Less Harmful Cigarettes Pursuant to the Conspiracy 196. Several Defendants did in fact conduct some research to develop less harmful cigarettes and nicotine alternatives. But Defendants conspired and acted in concert to suppress and exclude such products from the market. 197. Philip Morris developed a less harmful cigarette and then suppressed commercial marketing of the product. Philip Morris referred to this cigarette as having "superior physiological performance." According to a confidential memorandum to the Board of Directors, Philip Morris knew that there would be competitive pressure to produce "less harmful" cigarettes if one were to be marketed. The memorandum stated: "Our philosophy is not to start a war, but if war comes, we aim to fight well and to win." Another Philip Morris secret document stated that "after much discussion we decided not to tell the physiological story which might have appealed to a health conscious segment of the market. The product as test marketed ... was unacceptable to the public ignorant of its physiological superiority." FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i i I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINOTON 98101-3199 So6-447•4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 70 sCW9197 01
Page 74: ntd78c00
6 7 8 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 memorandum from 1981 explained, "Difference between CTR and Special Four (lawyers' projects). Director of CTR reviews special projects - if proj ect was problem for CTR, use Special Four." 157. The Tobacco Companies have been successful in using the CTR Special Projects division to conceal harmful information. Research from the Special Projects division remains shielded from public scrutiny. Individual companies furthered the conspiracy by shielding company documents with bogus claims of attorney-client privilege and through tactics such as that undertaken by Brown & Williamson, which over the years has transferred highly relevant documents (described disingenuously but ironically as "deadwood") to its British parent company, B.A.T., so that they would not be discovered in legal proceedings in the United States. J. Defendants Misrepresented Health Claims 158. As discussed below, Defendants restrained, concealed, and suppressed research and potential development, marketing, and manufacturing of less harmful and less addictive cigarettes. Despite their ability to produce less harmful cigarettes, Defendants did not market such products, except in limited test markets, which they later abandoned. Instead, Defendants fraudulently promoted filtered and low-tar cigarettes as safer or healthier, which was untrue. 159. During the early 1950s, when the first studies implicating smoking as a cause of lung cancer were being publicized, cigarette sales fell for the first time since the depths of the Great Depression. Defendants responded with massive advertising and public relations campaigns claiming that smoking filtered cigarettes was a reasonably safe alternative to quitting. In 1950, only about one percent of cigarettes were sold with filters. By the end of that decade, more than half of all cigarettes were sold with filters. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 98101-3299 zo6-447-44o0 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 59 SDOaH1sV 01
Page 75: ntd78c00
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 20 26 152. In June 1983, DeNoble was called to the Philip Morris headquarters in New York to brief top executives. After the meeting, company lawyers visited the lab and reviewed research notebooks. There were discussions of shifting the research out of the company, perhaps to DeNoble and Mele as outside contractors or to a lab in Switzerland, to distance Philip Morris from the results. 153. In April 1984, Philip Morris representatives instructed the researchers to stop work, kill all the animals, turn in their security badges, and withdraw a paper on the addictive qualities of nicotine that had been accepted for publication by a scientific journal. Philip Morris closed the laboratory, fired the researchers, forced them to agree to remain quiet about their work, and threatened them with legal action if they published their work. 154. The researchers remained silent about their work until testifying in 1994 before a congressional committee in Washington, D.C. 155. Defendants did not merely conceal all negative research information, but they also assigned all research information indicating that cigarette smoking is addictive to a so-called "Special Projects" division of TIRC, where the information was secreted from the public and concealed from discovery in litigation against the Tobacco Companies by improper assertion of attorney-client privilege. 156. The purpose of the "Special Projects" division was to choose selectively and with bias research projects regarding the links between smoking and disease in order to develop expert witnesses for defense purposes in tort suits against the Tobacco Companies. Consistent with this purpose, the Tobacco Companies' attorneys were substantially involved in strategic and specific decision-making within the "Special Projects" division in order to hide adverse information and evidence from the public through spurious claims of attorney-client privilege. For example, a FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLA INT - 58 SUOOHI9i 01
Page 76: ntd78c00
I 2 3 4 5 11 17 Brown & Williamson and R.J. Reynolds. In 1962, Brown & Williamson's parent company conducted a meeting of its worldwide subsidiaries in Southampton, England. At this meeting, one researcher stated that "smoking is a habit of addiction" and "(n)icotine is not only a very fine drug, but the technique of administration by smoking has considerable psychological advantages." Several years later, in 1967, the researcher admitted that the company is in the "nicotine rather than the tobacco industry." 118. These recently released secret documents indicate that Addison Yeaman, general counsel at Brown & Williamson, was aware in 1963 that the U.S. Surgeon General had concluded that cigarettes "cause, or predispose, to lung cancer" and that "[t]hey contribute to certain cardiovascular disorders" and "may well be truly causative in emphysema, etc." Yeaman concluded that "[w]e are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug." 119. A secret report distributed to Philip Morris executives in 1971 noted that only 28% of those who tried to quit were still nonsmokers eight months later. The report also described the effects of quitting: Even after eight months quitters were apt to report having neurotic symptoms, such as feeling depressed, being restless and tense, being ill-tempered, having a loss of energy, being apt to doze off, etc. They were further troubled by constipation and weight gains which averaged about five pounds per quitter.... This is not the happy picture painted by the Cancer Society's anti-smoking commercial which shows an exuberant couple leaping in the air and kicking their heels with joy because they've kicked the habit. A more appropriate commercial would show a restless, nervous, constipated husband bickering viciously with his bitchy wife who is nagging him about his slothful behavior and growing waistline. 120. A 1972 R.J. Reynolds report concluded that people smoke to obtain "physiological 25 26 satisfaction derived from the nicotine." A 1972 Philip Morris report presented at a CTR conference FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 a06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 43 SW06 197 0
Page 77: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 198. As discussed above, in the early 1980s, Philip Morris researchers in Richmond worked to develop a synthetic form of nicotine that would avoid its cardiovascular complications, until Philip Morris abruptly shut down the research operation. 199. R.J. Reynolds's efforts to develop a less harmful cigarette also focused on delivering nicotine to the consumer without the harmful constituents of tobacco smoke. In the late 1980s, R.J. Reynolds developed and test-marketed "Premier," a cigarette that heated but did not bum tobacco. This made for a healthier nicotine delivery system. A 1987 memorandum concerning Premier, from one of R.J. Reynolds's outside law firms, warned that this smokeless cigarette could "have significant effects on the tobacco industry's joint defense efforts" and that "[t]he industry position has always been that there is no alternative design for a cigarette as we know them: " Consistent with the conspiracy, R.J. Reynolds's test marketing of Premier did not include information about the relative harmfulness of Premier. R.J. Reynolds, having agreed not to compete on the basis of health and safety, concluded that Premier was a failure. 200. Liggett researched and developed a less harmful cigarette, but did not market the product, recognizing that doing so would "indict" the whole Industry. Liggett was also aware that Philip Morris would "clobber" Liggett for violating the agreement not to compete based on health claims or development of a less harmful cigarette. Liggett's less harmful cigarette research project, called XA, was initiated in 1968 and, after a minimal expenditure of only $14 million, Liggett found that "[c]igarette tar has been neutralized" and there was "[n]o evidence for new or increased hazard." 201. Nevertheless, these cigarettes - which were believed by Liggett to be of "commercial quality" - were not commercially marketed, because of Defendants' conspiracy. James Mold, FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I ITHIRU AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I0I-j2y9 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 71 50008187 01
Page 78: ntd78c00
1 2 3 15 16 17 effects, and find means of removing them. If the latter appears to be impossible, let us develop a non-tobacco cigarette which doesn't have them to begin with." The author of the proposal stated: "I'll bet that the first company to produce a cigarette claiming: a substantial reduction... in tars and nicotine, or an ersatz cigarette whose smoke contains no tobacco tars, and with good smoking flavor, will take the market." 184. Despite the prospect of taking the market, Philip Morris did not pursue the removal of carcinogens. 185. Similarly, in 1966, the Director of Research and Development at Lorillard wrote to the Company's president, stating: It is thought that the development of a cigarette, the smoke from which gives little or no tumorigenic response would be regarded as a highly significant development by the scientific community. . . undoubtedly such a product would place the corporation in a highly enviable position, and in the writer's opinion a two or three fold increase in sales could result within a short period ... It is unrealistic to envision a cigarette sales monopoly in that such a product would be effectively duplicated by competitors in a short time. On the other hand, if we fail to pursue this research and/or a competitor marketed a cigarette whose smoke condensate gives little tumorigenic response, the writer is of the opinion that a significant sales loss could result. 186. Despite the marketing opportunity outlined in the above memorandum, neither Lorillard nor its competitors violated the conspiracy and marketed a less harmful cigarette. 187. A June 21, 1954 Hill and Knowlton memorandum states: Early in the life of the [TIRC], it was accepted as a basic principle that every effort should be made to avoid stimulating more adverse publicity and controversy on the subject of tobacco and health. That principle has been and will continue to be carefully adhered to in the work carried on for the Committee. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, $UITE 3400 $EATTLE, WASHINCTON 98IUI-3299 io6-4q7-44o0 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 67 soaoa1s7ni
Page 79: ntd78c00
I 7 8 9 10 11 191. On information and belief, this reference to "smoking and health seminars" referred to U.S. Tobacco's instructions to employees not to disseminate truthful information about the adverse health effects of nicotine tobacco products. 192. All Defendants were keenly aware of the risk to the Tobacco Companies if any of them sought a competitive advantage by developing and marketing a truly safer or less addictive product. The risk was avoided by their agreeing not to compete on that basis. 193. For example, in 1970, an outside lawyer in a firm specializing in representing the Tobacco Industry wrote to DeBaun Bryant, General Counsel at Brown & Williamson, that explicit references to research into safer products, products which are less biologically active, or "healthy cigarettes": constitute a real threat to the continued success in the defense of smoking and health litigation. Of course, we would make every effort to "explain" such statements if we were confronted with them during a trial, but I seriously doubt that the average juror would follow or accept the subtle distinctions and explanations we would be forced to urge. ... [E]mployees in both companies [Brown & Williamson and BATCO] should be informed of the possible consequences of careless statements on this subject. 17 18 194. The Cigarette Advertising Code, adopted by Defendants, was another mechanism used to enforce the illegal agreement not to compete by disclosing truthful information about nicotine tobacco products. Among other provisions, it prohibits health claims in advertisements released by the Tobacco Companies unless the "Code Administrator," to whom all cigarette advertisements are required to be submitted, approves of the advertisement. The Code provided a mechanism to monitor and police Defendants' illegal agreement, and to create a disincentive for research, development, and marketing of a less harmful cigarette. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON JSiOi-3299 206-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 69 50009187 01
Page 80: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 6 13 14 15 25 26 188. The Tobacco Companies were aware that the agreement creating TIRC restrained competition by requiring each of the Tobacco Companies to forego individual commercial advantage so that the conspiracy would hold. As Philip Morris noted, similar agreements in other countries restrained competition: "On the Continent individual companies and monopolies have agreed to pool research on the health question, thereby reducing it as a basis for competition." BATCO Chairman Sir Charles Ellis said, "If this Company makes any significant scientific discovery clearly relevant to health it will share its knowledge with its co-members [in a U.K. committee of tobacco manufacturers] and not seek to obtain competitive commercial advantage." 189. Defendants' intentional agreement not to compete in the health care segment and to suppress truly healthier alternative products is shown in the transcript of a 1962 meeting of Brown & Williamson companies in Southampton, England, in which the chairman remarks that, if the company manufactured safer brands, "how to justify continuing the sale of other brands? ... It would be admitting that some of its products already on the market might be harmful. This would create a very difficult public relations situation °" 190. U.S. Tobacco terminated an employee and apologized to the Big Six after the employee was quoted in a New York Post article to the effect that smokeless tobacco is less dangerous than smoking, thus demonstrating to its co-conspirators its support for the conspiracy. Ernest Pepples of Brown & Williamson reported this in a memo, in which he wrote that he had been called by U.S. Tobacco's General Counsel, Jim Chapin. Pepples stated: Chapin says the statements quoted were unauthorized and do not represent his company's views. He has asked me to extend US Tobacco's apology to each of the cigarette companies and advised me that the individual quoted in the article is no longer employed at US Tobacco. Chapin says US Tobacco has instituted smoking and health seminars throughout the company. FOSTER PEPPER & SI-IEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, wASHINGTON9gI0I"3299 ao6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 68 50008 197 03
Page 81: ntd78c00
M 7 8 9 10 11 23 24 25 26 a. "[C]igarette manufacturers manipulate and control the delivery of nicotine in marketed products. Cigarettes are designed to supply nicotine at consistent levels despite the wide variations in the nicotine levels of the raw materials, the immensely complicated combustion chemistry, and the complex chemical flow properties of a modem cigarette." b. "Manufacturers use many techniques to control nicotine deliveries....[T]he nicotine content and delivery of each brand of cigarettes is remarkably consistent from batch- to-batch and year-to-year. This level of control is analogous to that of the pharmaceutical industry in the production of prescription drugs." c. "[T]he tobacco industry uses a number of methods to boost nicotine delivery in low-yield cigarettes.... Without the independent manipulation of nicotine, many of the techniques used to reduce tar would also substantially reduce nicotine. Instead, regardless of differences in labeled/advertised FTC nicotine yields and manufacturers' claims of low- nicotine delivery for certain brands, all cigarettes contain approximately the same amount of nicotine in the rod, and deliver about 1 mg of nicotine, enough to produce pharmacological effects." d. "The tobacco industry's control and manipulation of nicotine delivery from cigarettes provides additional evidence of the Industry's intent to deliver pharmacologically satisfying levels of nicotine to smokers." 215. As a further example, as stated above, the Tobacco Companies add several ammonia compounds during the manufacturing process that increase the delivery of nicotine and almost double the nicotine transfer efficiency of cigarettes. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i I I THIRD AVENUE/ $UITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 98I0I-3199 i06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 77 500081B7 DI
Page 82: ntd78c00
6 7 8 22 23 24 25 26 9 0 continues to this day. There was never any "war" within the tobacco industry over who would produce a less harmful cigarette. To this day, Defendants have continued to observe the terms of their conspiracy, pursuant to which no Defendant has marketed a less harmful cigarette. Defendants' research efforts confirm, however, that Defendants knew that nicotine tobacco products were harmful, deadly, and addictive. M. Defendants Manipulated Nicotine To Assure Addiction 206. The Tobacco Companies use a variety of means to manipulate and precisely control the levels and potency of nicotine in their products in order to assure continued addiction and to maintain their market in unsafe, addictive cigarettes. 207. Dr. David A. Kessler, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, recently testified to Congress that cigarette manufacturers can add nicotine to any part of the cigarette and can precisely manipulate the levels and delivery rate of the nicotine. 208. Dr. Kessler testified that "the cigarette industry has attempted to frame the debate on smoking as the right of each American to choose. The question we must ask is whether smokers really have that choice." Dr. Kessler stated: a. "Accumulating evidence suggests that cigarette manufacturers may intend this result - that they may be controlling smokers' choice by controlling the levels of nicotine in their products in a manner that creates and sustains an addiction in the vast majority of smokers." Oo tv b. "We have information strongly suggesting that the amount of nicotine in a~ w cigarette is there by design." ~D ~ V FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I i THIRD AVENUE, $UITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98i0I-3a99 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 74 5000818"I01
Page 83: ntd78c00
1 2 9 10 18 19 20 21 have reason to believe that in spite of gentlemans [sic] agreement from the tobacco industry in previous years that at least some of the major companies have been increasing biological studies within their own facilities." Although conspirators seldom live by the terms of their unlawful agreements, as discussed below, in the final analysis, none of the Tobacco Companies ever commercially marketed a truly less harmful cigarette, because any company that attempted to do so ultimately succumbed to pressure imposed by the other co-conspirators. 180. A 1968 memorandum to the CEO of Liggett describing a meeting of the research directors of the Big Six manufacturers stated that with regard to the topic of smoking and health there was "a general feeling that an industry approach as opposed to an individual company approach was highly desirable." 181. Following the 1953 "gentlemen's agreement," although the companies competed on product features such as filters and the levels of tar and nicotine - none of which actually reduced the health risks presented by tobacco - the Tobacco Companies adhered to their agreement by not introducing less harmful cigarettes. During the 1970s and 1980s, Defendants continued to suppress information about the harmful effects known to them about nicotine and tobacco and continued instead to associate smoking with glamorous, athletic, and successful lifestyles. 182. Significantly, each tobacco company adhered to the conspiracy even while understanding that developing a less harmful cigarette would be to its own competitive advantage in the market place. 183. In 1958 an internal proposal was presented to the Director of Research and Development at Philip Morris to study ways of "identifying carcinogenic substances as well as all substances in cigarette smoke that are irritating or are known to produce undesirable physiological FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC ii i i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9810T'3299 ~o6-447-44oa FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 66 SppO81S] 01
Page 84: ntd78c00
I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 c. "The public thinks of cigarettes as simply blended tobacco rolled in paper. But they are much more than that. Some of today's cigarettes may, in fact, qualify as high technology nicotine delivery systems that deliver nicotine in precisely calculated quantities - quantities that are more than sufficient to create and to sustain addiction in the vast majority of individuals who smoke regularly." d. "The history of the tobacco industry is a story of how a product that may at one time have been a simple agricultural commodity appears to have become a nicotine delivery system." e. "[T]he cigarette industry has developed enormously sophisticated methods for manipulating nicotine levels in cigarettes." f "In many cigarettes today, the amount of nicotine present is a result of choice, not chance." g. "[S]ince the technology apparently exists to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to insignificant levels, why, one is led to ask, does the industry keep nicotine in cigarettes at all?" 209. Dr. Kessler also testified that, as one example of this manipulation, Brown & Williamson had developed a tobacco plant, code named "Y-1," with perhaps twice the nicotine content of regular tobacco and had marketed cigarettes with Y-1 tobacco in the United States in 1993. 210. The Y-l conspiracy was aided and abetted by DNA Plant Technology Corp. ("DNAP"), a biotechnology firm engaged in the development and improvement of various plant species and varieties through the use of advanced breeding and genetic engineering techniques. In FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i i i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98i01'3299 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 75 J0008187 01
Page 85: ntd78c00
I 2 3 4 5 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 26 April 1985, Brown & Williamson contracted with DNAP to develop "commercial high-nicotine varieties" of tobacco. Brown & Williamson entered into this conspiracy to develop a reliable source of high-nicotine tobaccos that it could then use to control the nicotine levels in its cigarettes. 211. To hide the nicotine manipulation from the public and government regulators, Brown & Williamson had most of the Y-1 development work done in Brazil, through its affiliate, Souza Cruz Overseas. To conceal this conspiracy, Brown & Williamson instructed DNAP to tell FDA investigators that Y-1 had "never been commercialized." Only after the FDA discovered U.S. customs invoices indicating that 500,000 pounds of Y-I nicotine-enriched tobacco had been shipped to Brown & Williamson did the company finally admit that it had developed a high-nicotine tobacco. DNAP recently pled guilty to the illegal export of Y-1 tobacco seed into Brazil in violation of U.S. law. 212. As another example, the Tobacco Companies also add chemicals to increase the alkalinity, or smoke pH, of tobacco blends and thereby increase nicotine potency and deliver an enhanced "nicotine kick." 213. In testimony given on January 29, 1998, in State of Minnesota & Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota v. Philip Morris Inc., No. C1 94-8565 (Minn. Dist. Ct.), a civil action against the Tobacco Companies in St. Paul, Minnesota, Dr. Richard Kurt of the Mayo Clinic likened the effect of manipulating the alkalinity of cigarette smoke to freebasing nicotine. 214. The FDA's August 1995 report Nicotine in Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco Products describes in detail various techniques that the Tobacco Companies use to control nicotine levels and potency, noting that the Tobacco Companies exert as much control over the product as any other drug manufacturer: FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I1 I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98IOI-3299 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 76 5000818) 01
Page 86: ntd78c00
8 9 10 16 24 25 26 r 0 a. "Nearly all first use of tobacco occurs before high school graduation; this finding suggests that if adolescents can be kept tobacco-free, most will never start using tobacco." b. "Most adolescent smokers are addicted to nicotine and report that they want to quit but are unable to do so." c. "Cigarette advertising appears to increase young people's risk of smoking by affecting their perceptions of the pervasiveness, image, and function of smoking." d. In 1990, cigarette advertising and promotional expenditures were almost $4 billion, making cigarettes the second most promoted consumer product, after automobiles, in the United States. e. The most notorious example of the targeting of minors is the Joe Camel advertising campaign conducted by R.J. Reynolds. When R.J. Reynolds began this cartoon campaign in 1988, Camel's share of the children's market was only 0.5 percent. In just a few years, Camel's share of this illegal market has increased to 32.8 percent, representing sales estimated at $476 million per year. Another indication of the phenomenal success of this marketing campaign is the fact that in a recent survey of six-year-olds, 91 percent of the children could correctly match Old Joe with a picture of a cigarette, and the silhouette of Mickey Mouse and the face of Old Joe were nearly equally well recognized by almost all children. 00 f. All Defendants are aware of the fact that smoking begins primarily among N ~ youths who are not yet 18 years of age. ~ ~ Cn 4~1. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3199 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 81 soaoaiev o1
Page 87: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 9 15 16 17 18 19 0 0 225. Further, as discussed above, American Tobacco misrepresented its manipulation of nicotine levels to the Waxman Subcommittee. O. Defendants Targeted Children And Minorities 226. The Tobacco Companies knew that nicotine was a highly addictive drug and that the cigarette delivery system for this drug caused cancer and other serious health problems, including death. The Tobacco Companies nevertheless sought to replace nicotine addicts who died, and they did so by marketing their products to children, knowing that if a child does not smoke by age 18, he or she is unlikely to become a nicotine addict - and steady cigarette customer. Defendants also sought to increase the number of smokers by directly targeting members of racial minorities, both children and adults. 227. Despite the best efforts of parents, educators and the medical profession, tobacco use among young people has not declined and is now on the rise. Sophisticated propaganda and advertising techniques by the Tobacco Companies create a mental image associating tobacco use with healthy, glamorous and athletic lifestyles, success and sexual attractiveness. This is intended to get people to try cigarettes or other tobacco products. Within a short period of time, a new tobacco user becomes physiologically changed and addicted, as well as emotionally dependent. As the tobacco user begins to wish he or she could quit, the wrongful conduct of Defendants described herein reinforces the addiction and encourages the smoker to avoid the physical sickness, pain, and discomfort caused by depriving an addicted body of the nicotine it craves. 228. Smoking begins primarily during childhood and adolescence. Ninety percent of male smokers begin smoking before age 18. Each day more than 3,000 American teenagers start smoking. The Surgeon General summarized the problem in her 1994 report: ~ .P Co FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC ~j I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 Q1 >.06-447-4400 Q14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 80 50008187 01
Page 88: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 23 24 25 26 delivered to smokers of "light" cigarettes. An ammoniated cigarette that delivers more potent nicotine to smokers measures the same as a cigarette with no such additives. 172. The Tobacco Companies maintain that nicotine levels follow tar levels. In the words of Dr. Alexander Spears, Vice Chairman of Lorillard, in his 1994 testimony before the Waxman Subcommittee -"[n]icotine [levels] follow the tar levels," and the correlation between the two "is essentially perfect" and "shows that there is no manipulation of nicotine." Dr. Spears neglected to mention to Congress that, in a 1981 study not intended for public release, he stated explicitly that low-tar cigarettes use special blends of tobacco to keep the level of nicotine up while tar is reduced: "[T]he lowest tar segment [of product categories] is composed of cigarettes utilizing a tobacco blend which is significantly higher in nicotine." R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, American Tobacco, and the Tobacco Institute have similarly represented to the public and to the FDA that the nicotine levels in their products are purely a function of setting the tar levels of such products. 173. American Tobacco told the Waxman Subcommittee in an October 14, 1994 letter that "nicotine follows `tar' delivery, i.e., high `tar' -high nicotine, low `tar' - low nicotine ... Nicotine is neither adjusted nor altered to compensate for losses inherent in the manufacturing process." Internal company documents reviewed by the Waxman Subcommittee show, however, that American Tobacco's experimentation with adding nicotine to its tobacco was extensive - extensive enough for American Tobacco executive John T. Ashworth to instruct employees in a confidential memorandum: "In the future our use of nicotine should be referred to as `Compound W' in our experimental work, reports, and memorandums, either for distribution within the Department or for outside distribution." FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9810I-3399 zo6-447-44oo FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 63 sooob1B'1o1
Page 89: ntd78c00
6 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 9 174. Recent tests conducted at the direction of the FDA show that the low-tar brands actually have more nicotine by weight than the non-"light" brands. The high level of nicotine found in lower tar cigarettes seriously misleads consumers and renders false the Tobacco Companies' claim of an "essentially perfect" correlation between reduced tar and nicotine levels. According to the FDA, the Tobacco Companies use a combination of the methods described above to boost nicotine delivery to compensate for nicotine losses from the application of tar-reducing design modifications. The Tobacco Companies thus maintain, by means of nicotine addiction, a continuing market for a product that consumers are misled to believe contains less of each of the harmful ingredients in regular cigarettes. 175. Against this mounting body of evidence of the Tobacco Companies' manipulation and control of nicotine levels in cigarettes, the Tobacco Companies continue to deny to the public, and to Congress under oath, that they manipulate and control nicotine levels. Top executives from Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, Liggett and Brown & Williamson testified before Congress in April 1994 that their respective companies do not manipulate nicotine, add it, independently control it, restore it during the manufacturing process, or otherwise achieve a minimum level of nicotine in their products. Thomas E. Sandefur, Jr., CEO of Brown & Williamson, has admitted that the company controlled nicotine, but in a now familiar refrain, stated that the company did so only for "taste." A primary purpose and effect of these decades-old denials and the suppression of scientific testing have been that governmental entities did not act earlier and more aggressively to reduce cigarette smoking and limit sales of cigarettes; nor did the BCBS Plans or their members act earlier and more aggressively to reduce cigarette smoking. Actions that would have reduced FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9S IOI-3199 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 64 SWOBtB] 01
Page 90: ntd78c00
4 5 6 7 8 9 23 24 25 26 • • N. Defendants Continue to Fraudulently Conceal Their Manipulation of Nicotine 219. Despite their statements that they accepted responsibility for health issues related to smoking and would discover and disclose all aspects of smoking and health, Defendants have fraudulently failed to reveal their manipulation of nicotine levels and potency. 220. The Tobacco Companies continue to deny to the public, and recently denied to Congress under oath, that they manipulate and control nicotine levels. 221. In April 1994, executives of Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, Liggett, and Brown & Williamson testified to Congress that the companies do not manipulate, add, control, or restore nicotine during the manufacturing process or otherwise achieve a minimum level of nicotine in their products. 222. In April 1994, the Tobacco Companies placed advertisements across the country denying that they believe cigarette smoking is addictive and misleading the public about whether the cigarette manufacturers deliberately control nicotine levels in their products. 223. An advertisement placed by Philip Morris in newspapers across the country in April 1994 affirmatively represented that Philip Morris does not "manipulate" nicotine levels in its cigarettes and that "Philip Morris does not believe that cigarette smoking is addictive." 224. R.J. Reynolds placed a similar advertisement in newspapers across the United States in 1994 stating that "we do not increase the level of nicotine in any of our products in order to `addict' smokers. Instead of increasing the nicotine levels in our products, we have in fact worked hard to decrease 'tar' and nicotine." R.J. Reynold's advertisement then touted its use of "various techniques that help us reduce the 'tar' (and consequently the nicotine) yields of our products." FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRO AVENUE. $UITE 340a ~ SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 98IOi'3199 ao6-447A40° . FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 79 S0008187 01
Page 91: ntd78c00
i 0 1 229. In testimony before the Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives 2 on January 29, 1998, Philip Morris CEO Geoffrey C. Bible and CEOs of the other Tobacco 3 Companies testified that marketing to teens should be actively discouraged because of the health 4 hazards of nicotine cigarettes. Nevertheless, for years, the Tobacco Companies did just the opposite. 5 230. Newly released "secret" documents demonstrate that the youth market has been 6 7 systematically targeted by the Tobacco Companies to replace dying adults (who themselves first 8 became addicted as children). Among other things, these documents constitute admissions of 9 intentional and unlawful attempts to induce children to purchase cigarettes all in violation of various 10 state laws, which prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors. These admissions demonstrate the I1 Tobacco Companies' deliberate overall scheme to create, maintain, and replenish a pool of slowly 12 dying consumers through fraud, misrepresentations, and deceptive acts by manipulating nicotine and 13 14 manipulating the marketplace. 15 231. For example, in 1974, the Board of Directors of R.J. Reynolds was presented with a 16 marketing plan that highlighted as an "opportunity area" a plan to "increase our young adult 17 franchise," with "young adults" described as including children 14, 15, 16 and 17 years old as well 18 as people from ages 18-24. 19 232. In 1980, the President of R.J. Reynolds received a report on that company's 20 declining success in the market for sale of cigarettes to children ages 14-17. He was informed that 21 22 "hopefully our various planned activities that will be implemented this fall will aid in some way in 23 reducing or correcting these trends." That is, R.J. Reynolds hoped to sell even more cigarettes to 24 children. 25 26 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98EoI-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 82 sooosie7 01
Page 92: ntd78c00
i 7 8 9 24 25 26 233. Similarly, in 1975, Brown & Williamson received an extensive report from its advertising agency with advice and analysis regarding the company's ability to attract "starters" (i.e., new smokers) in the age group 16-25. P. Defendants Fraudulently Concealed Their Misconduct 234. Until recently, the BCBS Plans did not know of Defendants' misconduct as described in this complaint or of facts from which that misconduct might reasonably have been inferred or that would have led to its discovery. The BC/BS Plans could not have discovered these facts or the alleged violations at an earlier time because Defendants fraudulently concealed their course of conduct and suspended the results of the internal research, which was exclusively within the Defendants' control. 235. The BC/BS Plans are not fully aware of the method used by Defendants to conceal their activities, but believe that the methods used by Defendants in furtherance of their combination and conspiracy were by nature self-concealing and not of a type that could have reasonably been apparent to Plaintiffs. 236. One method of concealment was to bury relevant documents. In 1985, a Brown & Williamson attorney recommended that much of its medical research be declared "deadwood" and shipped to England. The attorney stated, "I had marked certain of the document references with an X. The X designated documents which I suggested were deadwood in the behavioral and biological studies area. I said that the "B" series are Janus series studies and should also be considered as deadwood." The attorney further suggested that the research, development, and engineering department also "should undertake to remove the deadwood from its files." FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I] I i THIR D AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTONy$mI-329y 206-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 83 nams s 01
Page 93: ntd78c00
1 2 3 15 16 25 26 0 0 243. Defendants' fraudulent concealment, conspiracy, and illegal conduct continues to the present and, unless enjoined, will continue in the future. For example, the Tobacco Companies continue to assert unfounded claims of privilege, to make bogus claims of confidentiality and to misuse protective orders in litigated cases. 244. Even today, Defendants still equivocate when asked under oath about the addictive nature of nicotine. For example, in 1994, each of the CEOs of the Tobacco Companies testified under oath before Congress that smoking was not addictive. One industry representative testified: "I don't agree [that nicotine is addictive]. From what I've read on nicotine is that it contributes to the flavor, the taste of the product." Others testified as follows: a. Andrew Tisch of Lorillard asserted that smoking does not cause cancer: "We have looked at the data and the data that we have been able to see has all been statistical data that has not convinced me that smoking causes death." b. William L. Campbell of Philip Morris asserted, "Philip Morris doesn't manipulate nor independently control the level of nicotine in our products"; "Cigarette smoking is not addictive"; and "Philip Morris research does not establish that smoking is addictive." c. James W. Johnston of R.J. Reynolds said that "smoking is no more addictive than coffee, tea or Twinkies." 245. Philip Morris continues to compare cigarettes to candy and sweets. In April 1997, James Morgan, President of the U.S. tobacco division of Philip Morris, stated in a sworn deposition that cigarettes are not pharmacologically addictive, but are only "behaviorally addictive or habit- forming," just like "Gummy Bears" candy. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I n THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 $EATTLE, WA5HINGTON9BIOI-3199 >.06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 86 5p00818J 01
Page 94: ntd78c00
assistant director of research at Liggett during the project, recently testified that Liggett aborted the 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 23 24 25 26 development and marketing of a less harmful cigarette in the following terms: a. Mold stated that the XA project produced a safer cigarette: "We produced a cigarette which was, we felt, commercially acceptable as established by some consumer tests, which eliminated carcinogenic activity." b. Mold testified that after 1976, all meetings on the project were attended by lawyers, lawyers collected all notes after the meetings, and documents were directed to the law department to maintain secrecy through bogus assertions of the attorney-client privilege. He stated: "Whenever any problem came up on the project, the Legal Department would pounce upon that in an attempt to kill the project, and this happened time and time again." c. Mold testified that he was at a conference of scientists in Buenos Aires prepared to present his research regarding a less harmful cigarette when he received a "frantic call" from legal counsel and was told not to present the paper or issue the press release. He was instructed not to publish his results in the Journal of Preventive Medicine. d. Mold was asked why Liggett did not market a less harmful cigarette. He answered, "W ell, I can't give you, you know, a positive statement because I wasn't in the management circles that made the decision, but I certainly had a pretty fair idea why.... [T]hey felt that such a cigarette, if put on the market, would seriously indict them for having sold other types of cigarettes that didn't contain this, for example." Also, "[a]t a meeting we held in ... New Jersey at the Grand Met headquarters ... the various legal people involved 00 and the management people involved and myself were present. At one point Mr. Dey who at IV 4a 00 that time, and I guess still is the president of Liggett Tobacco, made the statement that he was FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC W `.C .r~ LM i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-j299 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 72 5000H13'101
Page 95: ntd78c00
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 told by someone in the Philip Morris company that if we tried to market such a product that they would clobber us." 202. Brown & Williamson also developed a less harmful cigarette which it did not market. Brown & Williamson's Project "Ariel" used a heating, as opposed to a burning, system. Its Project "Janus" was intended to identify hazardous components of cigarette smoke so that they could be removed. Jeffrey Wigand, former Vice President for Research and Development for Brown & Williamson, stated that he was instructed by the company's president to abandon all efforts to develop a safer product. He has testified that he was told, generally, "[t]hat there can be no research on a safer cigarette. Any research on a safer cigarette would clearly expose every other product as being unsafe and, therefore, present a liability issue in terms of any type of litigation." 203. Brown & Williamson also conducted research on tobacco substitutes or analogues, as did a number of the other companies. These substitutes were sought as a means to duplicate some of the characteristics of nicotine without toxic or harmfuI effects. For example, Brown & Williamson's parent developed "Batflake," a tobacco substitute. Laboratory tests showed that use of Batflake reduced a number of the harmful effects of smoking in direct proportion to the amount used in a cigarette. So far as is known, none of the substitute products were ever marketed in the United States. 204. In 1980, Brown & Williamson and its parent company abandoned the less harmful product search, describing it as: "Dangerous area [research into irritation and smoke inhalation]. Please do not publish or circulate. No more work is needed on biological side." 205. Defendants collectively abandoned their efforts to make less harmful or less addictive cigarettes commercially available because of their conspiracy, which began during the 1950s and FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRU AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 i06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 73 saooairroi
Page 96: ntd78c00
4 5 6 7 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 0 started the CTR Special Projects, the idea was that the scientific director of CTR would review a project. If he liked it, it was a CTR Special Project. If he did not like it, then it became a lawyers' special project." These minutes explicitly acknowledge that the supposedly "independent" scientific director of CTR channeled research into "special projects" for Defendants' litigation efforts and concealment. 241. In State of Florida v. American Tobacco Co., No. CL 95-1466 (15th Judicial Circuit), a civil action brought by the Florida State Attorney General against the Tobacco Companies, Special Master R. William Rutter, Jr., ruled on Apri19, 1997, that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate fraud on the part of the Defendants: [T]here is sufficient evidence which, if believed by the trier of fact, would be sufficient to support Plaintiffs' theory of fraud. Plaintiffs' theory ... substantially relates to allegations that the Defendants engaged in extensive efforts to hide from and misrepresent to the public, the health hazards associated with cigarettes and that Defendants mislead and defrauded the public and public health officials regarding the relationship between smoking and health. There is also evidence that the Defendants utilized attorneys in carrying out and planning fraudulent activities and undertook to misuse the attorney/client relationship to keep secret research and other activities related to the true health dangers of smoking. 242. • As recently as December 30, 1997, the trial court in State of Lfinnesota v. Philip Morris, Inc., No. Cl-94-8565, sanctioned Brown & Williamson $100,000 for willfully violating a court order to produce documents and required disclosure of documents Brown & Williamson had claimed were subject to the attorney-client privilege. The court ruled that Brown & Williamson had "blatantly disobeyed an Order of the Court" and "challenged the authority of the judicial system and impugned the integrity of that system." FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I t I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WA5HINGTON98IOI-3199 ao6-q47-q4oo FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 85 5000818'!01
Page 97: ntd78c00
. I 2 3 4 10 19 20 21 216. While Brown & Williamson publicly denied in 1995 that the use of ammonia in the processing of tobacco increases the amount of nicotine absorbed by the smoker, the company's own internal documents reveal that it and the other Tobacco Companies use ammonia compounds to increase nicotine delivery. A 1991 Brown & Williamson confidential blending manual states: Ammonia, when added to a tobacco blend, reacts with the indigenous nicotine salts and liberates free nicotine. . . . As the result of such change in the ratio of extractable nicotine to bound nicotine in the smoke may be altered in favor of extractable nicotine. As we know, extractable nicotine contributes to impact in cigarette smoke and this is how ammonia can act as an impact booster. 217. According to the Brown & Williamson manual, all American cigarette manufacturers except Liggett use ammonia technology in their cigarettes. 218. Patents owned by the Tobacco Companies also show that the cigarette industry has developed the capability to manipulate nicotine levels in cigarettes to an exacting degree. For example: a. A Philip Morris patent application discusses an invention that "permits the release ... in controlled amounts and when desired, of nicotine in tobacco smoke." b. Another Philip Morris patent application explains that the proposed invention is "particularly useful for the maintenance of the proper amount of nicotine in tobacco smoke" and notes that "previous efforts have been made to add nicotine to Tobacco Products when the nicotine level in the tobacco was undesirably low." c. A 1991 R.7. Reynolds patent application states that "processed tobaccos can 00 be manufactured under conditions suitable to provide products having various nicotine N -A OD levels." w ~ t7~ FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3199 a.o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 78 50008197 01
Page 98: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 0 237. Brown & Williamson attempted to control other documents that its attorneys thought might later cause difficulties in product liability actions so that it could falsely claim an attorney- client privilege or work-product protection for those documents. Such documents included scientific reports that the company sought to protect from discovery: [Scientific] material should come to you [corporate counsel] under a policy statement between you and Southampton [BATCO] which describes the purpose of developing the documents for B&W and sending them to you as use for defense of potential litigation. It is possible that a system can be devised which would exempt the Engineering reports because it might be difficult to maintain a privilege for covering such reports under the potential litigation theory. Continued Law Department control is essential for the best argument for privilege. At the same time, control should be exercised with flexibility to allow access of the R&D staff to the documents. 238. Other Defendants have used similar tactics to conceal the activities of the conspiracy. The joint actions of the conspiracy through CTR and the Tobacco Institute have been similarly shielded from scrutiny. Part of the document review undertaken by Brown & Williamson was an effort to conceal documents showing the true nature of the associations: "[In conducting document review,] pay special attention to documents suggesting that [Tobacco Institute] was used as a vehicle for the industry's alleged conspiracy to promote cigarettes through the 'open controversy' PR program." 239. CTR had a number of categories of research projects. Of particular significance is the category "special projects." Special projects were reviewed and selected for funding by the general counsel of the member companies. It may be reasonably inferred that lawyers controlled this research in an attempt to protect it from discovery and to further the conspiracy. 240. CTR's manipulation of research is shown in Committee of General Counsel minutes transmitted via a September 18, 1981 letter from an outside law firm, which stated: "When we FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRDAVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 xo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 84 5~818) 01
Page 99: ntd78c00
I 2 3 4 0 • 255. The documents also reveal ongoing deception of the public, targeting of minors, manipulation of toxic additives and a host of other wrongful conduct, the full scope of which is not yet known. V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ALLEGED BY ALL BCBS PLANS COUNT 1. VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (c) and 1962 (d)) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [Against All Defendants except the Council for Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute, and the Smokeless Tobacco Research Council, Inc.] 256. The BCBS Plans restate and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 255 of this Complaint. 257. This claim for relief is asserted against each of the Defendants except the Tobacco Institute, STRC and CTR and arises under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d) of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), which provide: (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.. . . (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection ...(c) of this section. 258. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants was a "person" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), as each of the Defendants was "capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property." 259. At all relevant times, the Tobacco Institute, CTR (formerly TIRC) and STRC each constituted an "enterprise" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) and have together constituted FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I[ I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9SI0I'3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 89 soaosi 81 nl
Page 100: ntd78c00
I 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 c. Engaging in myriad efforts to sell cigarettes and other tobacco products to minors in violation of various state laws. d. Chief Executive officers or representatives of Defendants made false and fraudulent statements under penalty of perjury in hearings before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, convened on March 25, April 14, May 17, May 26, June 21 and June 23, 1994. 263. These predicate acts form a "pattern" of racketeering activity. They have been related in their common objectives of: maximizing sales of tobacco products; misleading Congress, the public, government regulators and health care payers including the BC/BS Plans about the hazards of tobacco use and the addictive properties of nicotine; suppressing the truth concerning the addictive properties of nicotine and Defendants' manipulation of nicotine levels; soliciting minors and others to purchase cigarettes through false and misleading advertising; directing marketing and advertising toward minorities, teenagers and children so as to addict more cigarette buyers at an early age and otherwise devising means for manipulating and controlling nicotine levels of tobacco so as to addict minors and others; suppressing research and design and marketing of safer or less addictive cigarettes or alternative nicotine delivery products; and avoiding responsibility for the foreseeable costs of medical care for tobacco-related diseases that are now imposed on health care providers and payers such as the BCBS Plans. These acts have had the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims and methods of commission. The acts have been consistently repeated, are capable of further repetition and are being repeated. 264. Each Defendant conspired also to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). As detailed above, the conspiracy began in 1953, continues to the present and FOSTER PEPPER Y SHEFELMAN PLLC i i i i THI RD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 zo6-447-44ao FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 95 So0o81s7 01
Page 101: ntd78c00
1 2 9 that using tobacco products causes cancer; and denied that there was any correlation between the amount of nicotine in nicotine tobacco products and the incidence of cancer. (3) On the nationally televised CBS program F'ace the Nation, air date March 27, 1994, Brenda Dawson, vice-president of the Tobacco Institute, stated before a live television and radio audience: "[A]Il six cigarette manufacturers in the United States do ... not add nicotine" and "they don't manipulate nicotine. So Congress has been told form[ally] by every cigarette manufacturer in the United States that this claim is without foundation." (4) Obstruction of justice in the form of threatening and intimidating a witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, and threatening to retaliate against a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Upon information and belief, Defendants have made threats against Jeffrey Wigand, former research chief of Brown & Williamson, to discourage him from providing testimony in connection with Mike Moore, Attorney General, ex ret. State of Ylississippi v. the American Tobacco Co., No. 94-1429 (Ch. Ct. Jackson Co. Miss.), and in other litigation against the Tobacco Companies, and to retaliate against him for having served as a witness. 22 23 24 25 26 b. Engaging in interstate or foreign travel in aid of racketeering activities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952. -~I 00 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC WI I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 ~ SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98IOI-3299 0\ 2o6-447-4400 V FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 94 5W0010701
Page 102: ntd78c00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 19 an "enterprise" (collectively, the "Public Relations Enterprise") within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). Each enterprise, including the Public Relations Enterprise, is an ongoing organization that has an ascertainable structure and purpose beyond the scope of Defendants' predicate acts and their conspiracy to commit those acts. 260. Each enterprise, including the Public Relations Enterprise, is an ongoing organization whose constituent elements function as a continuing unit in maximizing the sales of tobacco products, misleading the public and regulators as to the health hazards of tobacco products, suppressing the truth concerning the addictive properties of nicotine and of the Tobacco Companies' manipulation of nicotine levels and carrying out other elements of Defendants' scheme, including shifting the costs of health care for smoking related injury, disease and illness onto others, including the BC/BS Plans. Each enterprise, including the Public Relations Enterprise, has an ascertainable structure and purpose beyond the scope of Defendants' predicate acts and their conspiracy to commit such acts. Each enterprise, including the Public Relations Enterprise, has engaged in, and its activities have affected, interstate and foreign commerce. 261. Such enterprises, including the Public Relations Enterprise, were born at an industry strategy meeting on December 15, 1953, at the Plaza Hotel in New York. The participants included representatives of American Tobacco, R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, Lorillard, Brown & Williamson, U.S. Tobacco and Hill and Knowlton. As alleged above, the participants agreed to form an organization to orchestrate a public relations campaign to protect their cigarette market from the perceived threat posed by adverse medical reports. This committee was designed to promote an offensive, pro-cigarette stance to counter reports of health dangers caused by cigarettes. The public FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, $UITE ;40G SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOi'3z99 zo6-447`4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 90 SDM6 197 m
Page 103: ntd78c00
7 8 9 10 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 threatens to continue into the future. The object of the conspiracy was and is to protect the Tobacco Companies' business operations by conducting the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering. Each Tobacco Company Defendant agreed to join the conspiracy, agreed to conduct the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering and agreed to the commission of and knowingly participated in at least two predicate acts within ten years of each other. Each Tobacco Company Defendant knew that those predicate acts were part of racketeering activity that would further the conspiracy. 265. The reason Defendants' violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (c) and (d) have proximately caused direct injury to the business and property of the BC/BS Plans is because the BCBS Plans have been required to incur significant, concrete financial costs and expenses attributable to tobacco- related diseases. The BC/BS Plans also have been unable to participate in a health care market where there would have been alternative safer or less addictive cigarettes that would have reduced costs and expenses related to tobacco-related diseases or to advise, suggest, promote, subsidize or require their members to choose to use effective alternative products such as safer cigarettes or less addictive cigarettes or other nicotine delivery devices. The BCBS Plans were unable to reduce the costs of tobacco-related diseases suffered by their members because the BCBS Plans and their members detrimentally relied on the false and fraudulent statements and information disseminated through an enterprise conducted by the Defendants through a pattern of racketeering activity. In absence of the Defendants' violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (c) and (d), these costs and expenses would have been substantially reduced. 266. This injury does not take the form of personal injuries suffered by smokers, and it is not a derivative injury of the harm caused to smokers. It is separate economic injury directly to the FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 98I0I-3399 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 96 50008 197 01
Page 104: ntd78c00
I 2 3 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 acts generated income for Defendants because they contributed to: the suppression and concealment of scientific and medical information regarding the health effects of tobacco products; the suppression of a market for alternative safer or less addictive nicotine products; the manipulation of nicotine to create and sustain addiction to Defendants' products; the targeting of teenagers and children and minorities with marketing and advertising designed to addict them, all to protect and ensure continued sales of Defendants' unsafe and addictive tobacco products; and the avoidance and shifting of smoking related health care costs to others including the BCBS Plans by the methods stated above, including illicit litigation tactics such as unfounded claims of attomey-client privilege and other means. 275. Defendants have used or invested their illicit proceeds, generated through the pattern of racketeering activity, directly or indirectly in the acquisition of an interest in, or in the establishment or operation of, each enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). Defendants' use and investment of these illicit proceeds in each enterprise is for the specific purpose and has the effect of: controlling the material information distributed to the public concerning the health effects of smoking; suppressing and concealing scientific and medical information regarding the adverse health effects of smoking and the alternatives of safer or less-addictive cigarettes; devising means for manipulating nicotine to create and sustain addiction to Defendants' products; directing marketing and advertising toward minorities, teenagers and children to addict them; and enticing more individuals to smoke or to use Defendants' unsafe nicotine tobacco products. 276. Each Defendant also conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). As detailed above, the conspiracy began in 1953, continues to the present and threatens to continue into the future. The object of the conspiracy was and is to protect the Tobacco FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I ITHIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 99IOI"3299 206'447'4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 99 SOOU91d] 01
Page 105: ntd78c00
1 II COUNT 3. 211 VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1) 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [Against All Defendants] 282. The BC/BS Plans restate and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 255 of this Complaint. 283. Since the early 1950s, and continuing until the present date, the Defendant Tobacco Companies, aided and abetted by the other Defendants herein, have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by entering into, adhering to and continuing to observe the terms of, a combination or conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce in the market for cigarettes and other nicotine/tobacco products in the United States. Such illegal concerted action has eliminated commercial competition that would have existed but for the conspiracy. Specifically, Defendants have conspired: (1) to suppress innovation and competition in product quality by agreeing not to engage in research, development, manufacture and marketing of less harmful cigarettes and other tobacco products; (2) to suppress output in a market, and to engage in concerted refusal to deal, by agreeing to keep at zero the output of less harmful cigarettes and other nicotine products; and (3) to suppress competition in marketing, by agrceing not to take business from one another by making claims as to the relative safety of particular brands, whether or not such claims would have been truthful. But for the conspiracy, competition in the market for cigarettes in the United States would have been far more vigorous, and consumers and others would have reaped enormous benefits. 284. But for the conspiracy, one or more of the Tobacco Companies would have developed a commercially successful, less harmful cigarette; such a cigarette would have garnered a substantial FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC 3I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98=DI'3299 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 102 SOOO8IB701
Page 106: ntd78c00
• 10 18 251. Improperly concealing documents and other evidence by improper claims of attorney- client privilege and other means has been a central aspect of Defendants' conspiracy. Among the evidence that Defendants long sought to keep hidden is a certain group of approximately 39,000 documents that the Tobacco Companies claimed were privileged. The Tobacco Companies' improper claims of privilege were rejected primarily under the crime-fraud exception to the privilege. In April 1998, the Tobacco Companies were ordered to turn these documents over to Congress and to plaintiffs in the Minnesota case, despite efforts by the Tobacco Companies in that case to stonewall production of the documents and, as part of their scorched earth tactics, to delay production through a frivolous appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. 252. On April 22, 1998 most of these 39,000 documents were made available for public scrutiny on the Internet. Although the BC/BS Plans have not yet had an opportunity to examine these documents in detail, there appears to be no doubt that they include evidence of massive and continuing wrongdoing by the Tobacco Companies. 253. For example, these documents demonstrate that the Tobacco Companies manipulated and suppressed research results and that Defendants had in place written instructions to destroy research results they considered harmful. 254. In one R.J. Reynolds document, an R.J. Reynolds official wrote to a company attorney that: "We do not foresee any difficulty in the event a decision is reached to remove certain reports from research files. Once it becomes clear that such action is necessary for the successful co defense of our present and future suits, we will promptly remove all such reports from our files." N -r_ 00 w %10 rn FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE j400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 981cI-ja99 xo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 88 5000818] 01
Page 107: ntd78c00
7 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 0 misinformation campaign continued over the next four decades and threatens to continue into the future. 262. Each of the Defendant Tobacco Companies has been associated with each of these enterprises. Each of the Defendant Tobacco Companies helped to direct each enterprise's actions and manage its affairs. Each of the Defendant Tobacco Companies conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of each enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Defendants' pattern of racketeering activity dates from at least 1953, continues to the present and threatens to continue into the future. Defendants' multiple predicate acts of racketeering, as alleged above, include the following: a. Mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343. The Defendants engaged in schemes to defraud members of the public, including the BC/BS Plans and their members, regarding the health consequences associated with using nicotine tobacco products. Those schemes have involved suppression of information regarding the health consequences associated with smoking, as well as fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension. Defendants' misrepresentations and fraudulent concealment of material facts, directly or by implication, include but are not limited to the following: misrepresentations and fraudulent concealment of the addictive nature of nicotine and the adverse health consequences of tobacco products; misrepresentations that such health effects of addictiveness were unknown or unproven; misrepresentations about Defendants' ability to manipulate and about the manipulation of nicotine levels and the addictive qualities of cigarettes; FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I0I-3299 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 91 5M818) 01
Page 108: ntd78c00
I 2 3 4 5 6 14 15 The consumption of tobacco products by the members in the BC/BS Plans, and by consumers throughout the United States, was the very object of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, and those products were used by BC/BS Plan members precisely as Defendants intended, with the negative health effects Defendants knew were inevitable. The injury thus inflicted on the BC/BS Plans by the Defendants was both foreseeable and intended. 279. Another object of Defendants' wrongful conduct was the knowing and intentional avoidance and shifting of tobacco-related health care costs, including the costs of diagnosis and treatment, onto others, including the BC/BS Plans. Defendants knew that the development of illness and disease was an inevitable result of tobacco use. Defendants also knew that payers for health care benefits and related services, including the BCBS Plans, would incur substantial financial injury as a result of their conduct. 280. The BCBS Plans have been directly injured in their business and property by reason of Defendants' violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a) and (d) in that they have been required to incur significant costs and expenses attributable to tobacco-related illnesses and diseases. Under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), the BC/BS Plans are entitled to bring this action and to recover three times the amount of damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 281. Defendants' unlawful conduct will continue unless the relief prayed for in this 21 Complaint is granted. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHlNGTON 98I0I-3299 io6-447-440o FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 101 50008 187 01
Page 109: ntd78c00
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (b) Defendants' communications directed toward government agencies and health officials were designed to preserve and increase the market for nicotine tobacco products while concealing the deleterious health effects caused by those products. Examples of these communications with government agencies include Defendants' communications with the U.S. Surgeon General, as well as their communications among themselves regarding what should not be disclosed to the Surgeon General, and communications with Congress; (c) Defendants communicated with each other regarding research into the effects of nicotine and ways to suppress that information; and (d) Defendants communicated with each other and the public regarding ways to identify and target the minors' market for the sale of cigarettes. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (2) Chief Executive Officers or representatives of the Defendants made false and fraudulent statements under penalty of perjury in hearings before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, convened on March 25, April 14, Apri128, May 17, May 26, June 21 and June 23, 1994, and televised nationwide. Defendants' press releases also recounted Defendants' fraudulent statements. The witnesses affirmatively denied that Defendants manipulate the amount of nicotine contained in cigarettes; denied FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I11 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOi'3299 i06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 93 5000819701
Page 110: ntd78c00
I 9 10 17 Is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 misrepresentations that they would provide the public and governmental authorities with objective, scientific information regarding all phases of smoking and health; and fraudulent concealment of certain aspects of smoking and health, including the availability of safer cigarettes and less addictive cigarettes. Defendants executed or attempted to execute such schemes through the use of the United States mails and through transmissions by wire, radio and television communications in interstate commerce. (1) Numerous documents were disseminated or transmitted by Defendants and their agents as part of a fraudulent scheme to mislead the public and others about the risks to health and life associated with smoking cigarettes. On information and belief, Defendants used the mails and wires to disseminate and transfer information in at least the following ways: (a) Defendants' marketing and promotional activities and testimony communicated to the public nationwide in newspapers, magazines and other periodicals, as well as communications and testimony sent over broadcast media, were designed to deceive the public, including the BCBS Plans and their members, regarding, among other things, the addictive nature of smoking and of smokeless tobacco, the adverse health effects associated with tobacco use and the objectivity and accuracy of Defendants' "independent" research efforts regarding those health effects. Examples of these marketing and co N promotional activities are described above; 4~ w FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC w I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 ~10 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3z99 ON io6-447-4400 CT1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 92 50W818) 01
Page 111: ntd78c00
0 7 8 9 15 16 22 23 24 25 26 295. But for the conspiracy alleged herein, a new relevant submarket for less harmful cigarettes and other nicotine products would have become available to consumers. Such products would likewise have been drugs, and as such, would have formed part of the broad market for drugs. 296. The BC/BS Plans are customers in the broad market for drugs, in that they pay for drugs for the benefit of their members. 297. The BC/BS Plans are purchasers of drugs, products and services used in treatment of nicotine addiction and dependence. The BC/BS Plans are potential customers for less harmful cigarettes or other nicotine products, in which the Tobacco Companies conspired to suppress competition. 298. Had one been available, a less harmful cigarette or other nicotine delivery device would have been a useful and necessary product for the treatment by health care providers of persons for nicotine dependence and addiction. Had such a product been available, the BC/BS Plans would have had the opportunity to purchase it for use in the treatment by health care providers of persons suffering from nicotine addiction. 299. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy, the BC/BS Plans were injured in their business or property as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. 300. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15, the BC/BS Plans are entitled to recover three times the actual damages they have sustained, and will in the future sustain, by reason of Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act, together with the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. Such damages run into the billions of dollars. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98IUi'3299 no6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 106 5000818")01
Page 112: ntd78c00
1 2 9 10 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 291. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15, the BC/BS Plans are entitled to recover three times the actual damages they have sustained, and will in the future sustain, by reason of Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act, together with the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. Such damages run into the billions of dollars. 292. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 26, the BC/BS Plans are also entitled to injunctive relief requiring Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. COUNT 4. VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1) [Against All Defendants] 293. The BC/BS Plans restate and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and 282 through 292 of this Complaint. 294. The Tobacco Company Defendants are, among other things, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive substance that is a drug, both commercially and within the meaning of 61 Fed. Reg. 44.396, 44.397 (1996), as recognized by the medical profession and by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Cigarettes are a combination product within 61 Fed. Reg. 44.396, 44.397 (1996) consisting of the drug nicotine and medical device components that deliver nicotine to the body. Accordingly, the Tobacco Company Defendants participate as sellers in the broad United States market for drugs. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 98IOi-31g9 ao6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 105 soaoe1e7oi
Page 113: ntd78c00
1 2 3 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 personally did not think nicotine was addictive, but conceded that under some definitions, it would be considered addictive. 306. In view of the documentary record establishing that the Tobacco Companies have known for years with certainty that nicotine is addictive, such testimony is dishonest and part of an ongoing attempt to disseminate false and misleading information. 307. At all relevant times Defendants intentionally, willfully or recklessly misrepresented material facts about the human health hazards of tobacco use, including addiction, and the association of cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use with various diseases of the heart, lung and other vital organs. 308. Because of Defendants' secret internal research, Defendants' knowledge of the material facts about tobacco use, health and addiction was and is superior to the knowledge of the BCBS Plans' members who purchased, used and consumed the Tobacco Companies' cigarettes and other nicotine tobacco products. Defendants' knowledge of the material facts about tobacco use, health and addiction was and is also superior to that of the BCBS Plans, which undertook to provide health care financing for their members. Public access to these facts is limited because such facts are exclusively within Defendants' control. 309. By expressly raising the issue of smoking, health and addiction and making partial and incomplete statements to the public about these issues, Defendants had a duty to reveal all material facts of which they had notice or actual knowledge, in order not to deceive and mislead the BC/BS Plans and their members. Defendants' disclosure of fragmentary information and half-truths constitutes material and actionable misrepresentation. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I i i-rHIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I0]-3a99 no6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 108 Saaoeiai 01
Page 114: ntd78c00
COUNT2. VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (a) and (d)) 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [Against All Defendants] 270. The BC/BS Plans restate and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 269 of this Complaint. 271. This claim for relief is asserted against each Defendant and arises under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a) and (d) of RICO, which provide: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity ... to use or invest, directly or indirectly any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.. . . (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a) ... of this section. 272. At all relevant times, each Defendant was a "person" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(3), as each Defendant was "capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property." 273. At all relevant times, the Tobacco Institute, CTR (formerly TIRC) and STRC have constituted an enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) or, in the alternative, each Defendant has constituted an enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). Each enterprise is an ongoing organization. Each enterprise and its activities affect interstate commerce in that the enterprise is engaged in the business of maximizing the sales of cigarettes and other nicotine products. 274. As alleged above, Defendants have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity that dates from 1953 through the present and threatens to continue into the future. These racketeering FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 98 5000E1B] 01
Page 115: ntd78c00
I 2 3 16 17 18 24 25 26 301. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 26, the BC/BS Plans are also entitled to injunctive relief requiring Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. COUNT 5. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION [Against All Defendants] 302. The BC/BS Plans restate and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 255 of this Complaint. 303. Defendants represented and promised to those who advance and protect the public health and provide or pay for health care and health care services that they would discover and disclose all material facts about the effects of cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use on human health, including addiction. 304. Defendants have made and continue to make representations, statements and promises about the safety of cigarettes, other tobacco products and nicotine in general and their effect on human health and addiction. Such representations, statements and promises were and remain materially false, incomplete and fraudulent at the time Defendants made them, and Defendants knew or had and continue to have reason to know of their falsity. Only Defendant Liggett has recently conceded that the nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; Liggett made this admission for the first time only in March 1997. 305. In testimony before Congress in January 1998, executives of other Tobacco Companies tried to have it both ways concerning the question of addiction. They stated that they FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON y8ID1-3299 206-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 107 50003 197 01
Page 116: ntd78c00
7 8 9 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 0 and injuries, including the expenses of medical care for nicotine-related diseases and illnesses and the treatment of nicotine addiction. 333. Defendants' continuing conduct is an ongoing and intentional breach of the special duty they undertook and owed to, among others, the BC/BS Plans. Defendants knowingly suppressed information that would have assisted any effort to advance the public's health as it relates to tobacco. This breach has resulted in a detrimental impact on BCBS Plans' members, the BCIBS Plans and the general public. 334. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' breach, the BC/BS Plans have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injuries and damages, primarily in the form of increased costs for health care services and treatment occasioned by tobacco-related illness, for which the BCBS Plans are entitled to recover and for which Defendants are jointly and severally liable. COUNT 8. UNJUST ENRICHMENT [Against All Defendants] 335. The BCBS Plans restate and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 255 of the Complaint. 336. Defendants owe and continue to owe a duty to the public, including the BCIBS Plans and their members, not to deceive them regarding the dangers of smoking. Beginning with Defendants' "Frank Statement," Defendants assumed and continue to owe a duty to the BC/BS Plans and their members, to research the dangers of smoking and to disclose the results. 337. Defendants, through the deceptive practices and the breaches of duty described in this Complaint, have induced many of the BCBS Plans' members to purchase the Tobacco Companies' FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 - SEATTLE, WASHINCTON93IOI-3299 no6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 115 maa9 187 m
Page 117: ntd78c00
I 2 10 19 20 21 business and property of the BC/BS Plans, which injury was intended by Defendants and is wholly distinct from the harms suffered by individuals. The BC/BS Plans suffered economic injury from the Defendants' violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (c) and (d) because the BC/BS Plans were obligated to pay substantially all of the health care costs of their members. No other person has standing to bring an action for the recovery of damages for this direct injury suffered by the BC/BS Plans as a result of Defendants' conduct. 267. The consumption of tobacco products by the members in the BCBS Plans, and by consumers throughout the United States, was the very object of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, and those products were used by BC/BS Plan members precisely as Defendants intended. The injury thus inflicted on the BCBS Plans by the Defendants was both foreseeable and intended, with the negative health effects Defendants knew were inevitable. 268. Another object of Defendants' wrongful conduct was the knowing and intentional avoidance and shifting of tobacco-related health care costs, including the costs of diagnosis and treatment, onto others, including the BC/BS Plans. Defendants knew that the development of illness and disease was an inevitable result of tobacco use. Defendants also knew and intended that providers of health care benefits and related services, including the BC/BS Plans, would incur substantial financial injury as a result of their conduct. 269. Under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), the BC/BS Plans are entitled to bring this action and to recover herein treble damages, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 00 IV -p co ~ ~ 0 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I1 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON98I0I-j199 i06-447-W- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 97 5000818] 01
Page 118: ntd78c00
` 1 2 3 4 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a pattern of racketeering activity. In the absence of Defendants' violations of Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18- 17-104(3) and (4), these costs and expenses would have been substantially reduced. 376. This injury is not a form of compensation for personal injuries suffered by smokers, and it is not a derivative injury of the harm caused to smokers. It is separate economic injury directly to the business and property of Rocky Mountain, and is wholly distinct from the harms suffered by individuals. Rocky Mountain suffered economic injury from the Defendants' violations of Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-17-104(3) and (4) because Rocky Mountain was obligated to pay for substantially all of the health care costs of its members. No other person has standing to bring an action for the recovery of damages for this direct injury caused by the Defendants' actions. 377. The consumption of tobacco products by the participants in Rocky Mountain, and by consumers throughout the United States, was the very object of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, and those products were used by Rocky Mountain participants precisely as Defendants intended. The injury thus inflicted on Rocky Mountain by the Defendants was both foreseeable and intended. 378. Under the provisions of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-106(7), Rocky Mountain is entitled to bring this action and to recover three times the amount of damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT 15. Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-17-104(1) and (4)) [Against All Defendants] 379. Rocky Mountain restates and incorporates herein paragraphs I through 255 and 256 through 281 of this Complaint. 380. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-104 states in pertinent part: FOSTER PEPPER & SI-IEFELMAN PLLC I I i I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3a99 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 126 50008197 01
Page 119: ntd78c00
0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 20 21 i Q. The Tobacco Industry Must Be Held Accountable 246. Despite the egregiousness of their conduct and the toll - human and economic - wreaked by the Tobacco Companies and their trade associations, the Tobacco Companies have so far enjoyed virtual immunity from liability because of their scorched-earth tactics in defending lawsuits and their successful conspiracy to conceal truthful information about the adverse health effects of tobacco and nicotine, including addiction. 247. In large part, the success of the Tobacco Companies has been founded on the industry's heretofore sanctioned litigation tactics. As one Tobacco Company lawyer wrote in 1988: [T]he aggressive posture we have taken regarding depositions and discovery in general continues to make these cases extremely burdensome and expensive for Plaintiffs' lawyers, particularly sole practitioners. To paraphrase General Patton, the way we won these cases was not by spending all of Reynold's money, but by making that other son of a bitch spend all his. 248. The Tobacco Companies' immunity is also attributable to its success in fraudulently suppressing harmful information about nicotine and tobacco. 249. The BCBS Plans have expended and will continue to expend substantial sums of money due to the cost of health care benefits and related services for treatment of tobacco and nicotine-caused diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer, emphysema, and addiction. The total cost for these BC/BS Plans will be proven at trial, but is estimated to be at least hundreds of millions of dollars per year. R. New Evidence of Wrongful Conduct is Emerging 250. Defendants have used invalid claims of privilege to shield from public view and to 00 withhold from adversaries in litigation tens of thousands of documents that bear directly on their wrongful conduct over the decades. N -p. Ct> W FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON98IOI-3299 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 87 1 11 soU09ie] 01
Page 120: ntd78c00
Companies' business operations by investing their illicit proceeds, generated through a pattern of 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 racketeering activity, in each enterprise. Each Defendant agreed to join the conspiracy, agreed to invest racketeering-generated proceeds in each enterprise in order to continue enterprise operations and agreed to the commission of and knowingly participated in at least two predicate acts within ten years of each other. Each Defendant knew that those predicate acts were part of racketeering activity that would further the conspiracy. 277. Defendants' violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (a) and (d) have proximately caused direct injury to the business and property of the BC/BS Plans because the BC/BS Plans have been required to incur significant, concrete financial costs and expenses attributable to tobacco-related diseases; have been unable to participate in a market for alternative less harmful or less addictive nicotine products, or to advise, suggest, promote, subsidize or require their members to use alternative products such as safer or less addictive tobacco products or other nicotine delivery devices; and have not been as effective as they would otherwise have been in helping their members not to use hazardous nicotine/tobacco products. In absence of the Defendants' violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (a) and (d), these costs and expenses would have been substantially reduced. 278. This injury is not a form of compensation for personal injuries suffered by smokers, and it is not a derivative injury of the harm caused to smokers. It is separate economic injury directly to the business and property of the BC/BS Plans, and is wholly distinct from the harms suffered by individuals. The BC/BS Plans suffered this same economic injury from the Defendants' violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (a) and (d) because the BCBS Plans were obligated to pay substantially all of the health care costs of their Plans' members. No other person has standing to bring an action for the recovery of damages for this direct injury caused by the Defendants' actions. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3199 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 100 Sa00s 197 01
Page 121: ntd78c00
1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 share of the market for cigarettes and other nicotine/tobacco products; and those who used that product rather than conventional cigarettes would have had significantly fewer health problems. As a consequence of the above, the BC/BS Plans would have incurred substantially lower costs. 285. A relevant market in which Defendants' violations occurred is the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other nicotine products in the United States. Because, inter alia, such products are physically addictive, they are not reasonably interchangeable with other consumer products, nor are they characterized by cross-elasticity of price with other consumer products. There would have existed, but for Defendants' conspiracy, the manufacture and sale in the United States of less harmful cigarettes and other products which would still have delivered nicotine but which would have had materially less deleterious health effects than the products actually manufactured and sold by Defendants. Such products would have proven attractive to many smokers, who would have chosen to buy them if they had been available. 286. Because Defendants have conspired to suppress output of less harmful cigarettes and other nicotine products, and to refuse to deal in such products, their conduct is unreasonable per se under the Section 1 of the Sherman Act. There is, moreover, no colorable justification for the concerted action alleged herein which is unrelated to any lawful business transaction, does not promote efficiency, does not advance the interests of consumers and does not promote interbrand or intrabrand competition. 287. Antitrust law protects competition over innovation and product quality just as it protects price competition. Defendants willfully violated antitrust law by agreeing to suppress competition related to the safety of their products. It was clearly foreseeable that this antitrust violation would injure smokers' health, and it was just as foreseeable that the violation would, at the - FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SuITE;4oo SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-j299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 103 500013 197 01
Page 122: ntd78c00
1 2 3 8 9 17 i • VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF BY INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF BCBS PLANS ALASKA COUNT 10. Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471) [Against All Defendants] 346. BCWA restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 of this Complaint. 347. Alaska's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471 states, in pertinent part: (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce are declared to be unlawful. 348. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(a) states, in pertinent part: A person who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of another person's act or practice declared unlawful by [Alaska Stat.] § 45.50.471 may bring a civil action.... 349. In the conduct of trade or commerce, Defendants have engaged and do engage in deceptive and/or unfair acts of competition, including but not limited to the following: a. Intentionally, willfully and knowingly seeking to addict persons, including BCWA members and their children, to the use of hazardous cigarettes and other tobacco products, knowing that such addiction physically changes and damages smokers' brain structures and creates and constitutes a substantial unfair impediment or interference in the smokers' ability to choose whether to continue smoking, making the transaction no longer an arm's length one FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I i I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, wASHINGTON 98I0I-3Z99 xo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 118 aooosisv 01
Page 123: ntd78c00
5 6 12 13 14 15 16 same time, cause those financially responsible for smokers' health care to suffer an injury in their business or property, by paying increased costs and expenses for health care services and products. These two kinds of injury are inextricably intertwined. Each flows directly from the anticompetitive effects of the illegal conduct. The harm suffered by the BCBS Plans is the precise type of harm that a conspiracy to suppress competition related to product safety would be likely to cause. Accordingly, this harm reflects the anticompetitive effects of the violation. 288. The BCBS Plans are the efficient and natural parties to redress this antitrust violation. Moreover, the interests of the BC/BS Plans are aligned with those of consumers and with the public interest in increased competition and vigorous antitrust enforcement. 289. The damages claimed by the BC/BS Plans are not duplicative of damages that are asserted, or could be asserted, by any other persons, including those of the BC/BS Plans' members who have been injured by Defendants' unlawful conduct. Accordingly, awarding damages to the BCBS Plans will not risk duplicative recovery, nor will deterrnining the amount of such damages require apportionment of damages as between the BC/BS Plans and others. Moreover, because others cannot sue to recover these damages, allowing the Tobacco Companies to avoid the consequences of their illegal conduct would risk letting a major antitrust violation go unremedied. 290. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy, the BC/BS Plans were injured in their business and property by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes and other nicotine/tobacco products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes and other nicotine delivery devices that would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I S I THI0.D AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-}399 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 104 5aaos1sl oi
Page 124: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 11 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COUNT 6. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT [Against All Defendants] 318. The BCBS Plans restate and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 255 of this Complaint. 319. Defendants represented and promised to those who advance and protect the public health and provide or pay for health care and health care services that they would discover and disclose all material facts about the effects of cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use on human health, including addiction. 320. At all relevant times, however, Defendants intentionally, willfully or recklessly failed to disclose and/or concealed material facts about the human health hazards of tobacco use, including addiction, and the association of cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use with various diseases of the heart, lung and other vital organs. 321. By expressly and publicly raising the issue of smoking, health and addiction and making partial and incomplete statements about these issues, while actively concealing other material information, Defendants had a duty to reveal all material facts of which they had notice or actual knowledge, in order not to deceive or mislead the BCBS Plans and their members. Defendants' concealment of such material information concerning smoking, health and addiction constitutes material and actionable concealment. 322. The BC/BS Plans, which bear responsibility for providing comprehensive health care benefits to their members, reasonably and justifiably relied on Defendants' material non-disclosures. The BC/BS Plans thus lacked complete information regarding the effects of tobacco use on health, the relationship between nicotine and addiction and the manipulation of levels of nicotine delivery to - FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I[ THIRN AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I0I-329y 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- I 11 sooosis7 01
Page 125: ntd78c00
0 7 8 9 10 11 12 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 reduce cigarette and other tobacco product use and the costs associated therewith by the BCBS Plans' members. 326. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the foregoing fraudulent conduct of Defendants, the BCBS Plans have suffered damages through payments for medical care due to smoking and other tobacco use. 327. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' active concealment, the BCBS Plans have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injuries and damages for which the BC/BS Plans are entitled to recovery, and for which Defendants are jointly and severally liable. COUNT 7. BREACH OF SPECIAL DUTY [Against All Defendants] 328. The BC/BS Plans restate and incorporate herein paragraphs I through 255 of this Complaint. 329. Beginning as early as 1954 with the publication of "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" and continuing to the present, Defendants voluntarily assumed a special duty to protect the public health and a duty to those who advance the public health by paying health care claims and providing related services, including the BCBS Plans. Defendants promised and undertook to accept paramount responsibility for informing the public about health issues connected with their products, thus encouraging others to repose trust and confidence in them. 330. Defendants publicly represented that they were undertaking to act on behalf of the public's health; to aid and assist the research effort into all phases of tobacco use and health; to continue research and all possible efforts until all the facts were known; and to provide complete and objective information about all phases of cigarette smoking and health. Defendants thereby FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IUI"3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 113 5000B18701
Page 126: ntd78c00
6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 0 (7) misrepresenting that cigarettes and other tobacco products were of a particular quality or grade, when Defendants knew that they were not; (8) engaging in unconscionable trade practices; (9) fraudulently promoting filter and low-tar cigarettes as safer; (10) fraudulently manipulating scientific research into the health hazards of smoking; and (11) fraudulently creating their "research councils" and using them to spread false information about their products and to promote false information that cigarettes and other tobacco products were safe or that adverse heath effects had not been established. 350. The conduct, acts and practices described above and throughout this Complaint constitute deceptive and unfair methods of competition and/or are capable of being interpreted in a misleading way, all impacting the public interest, in violation of Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471. 351. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, BCWA has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to its business or property, including but not limited to its being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 352. BCWA has suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of Defendants' conduct as alleged herein, which conduct is unlawful under Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471 and is a "person" within the meaning of, and is entitled to bring this action under, Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(a). FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9810i-3299 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 120 50c08189 01
Page 127: ntd78c00
1 2 3 14 15 21 (1) It is unlawful for any person who knowingly has received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity ... to use or invest, whether directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds ... in the establishment or operation of any enterprise. (4) It is unlawful for any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (1) ... of this section. 381. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants was a "person" within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-103(4), as each of the Defendants was "capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property." 382. Rocky Mountain has been directly injured in its business and property by reason of Defendants' violations of Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-17-104(1) and (4). Under the provisions of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-106(7), Rocky Mountain is entitled to bring this action and to recover three times the amount of damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. HAWAII COUNT 16. Hawaii Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3) [Against All Defendants] 383. HMSA restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraph 349 of this Complaint. 384. Hawaii's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3, states, w in pertinent part: N -CA. (a) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course CC) -r~ of the person's business ... the person: o O (2) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the o source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services; - FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I II THIRD AVENUE, $UITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON y8I01r3~99 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 127 5~08187 01
Page 128: ntd78c00
1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 State of Colorado, in willful and/or flagrant violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-104, Colorado's analog to Sherman Act § 1. 368. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy alleged in Counts Three and Four above, Rocky Mountain was injured in its business and property (1) by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and/or (2) as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. 369. Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-114, Rocky Mountain is entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 370. Rocky Mountain is also entitled to injunctive relief directing Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. COUNT 14. Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-17-104(3) and (4)) [Against All Defendants except the Council For Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute and the Smokeless Tobacco Research Council, Inc.] 371. Rocky Mountain restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and 256 through 281 of this Complaint. 372. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-104 states in pertinent part: - - FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I l i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98I0I-3299 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 124 sows e 0 i
Page 129: ntd78c00
8 9 10 11 12 20 0 0 358. Pursuant to Alaska Stat. §§ 45.50.576(a)(1) and (2), BCWA is entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained by it, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 359. BCWA is also entitled to injunctive relief requiring Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. COLORADO COUNT 12. Colorado Consumer Protection Act (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105) [Against All Defendantsj 360. Rocky Mountain restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraph 349 of this Complaint. 361. The Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105, states, in pertinent part: A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, when in the course of such person's business ... such person: (b) Knowingly makes a false representation as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods...; (e) Knowingly makes a false representation as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations, or quantities of goods...; (g) Represents that goods ... are of a particular standard, quality, or grade ... if he knows or should know that they are of another; 26 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, $UITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98Io1-32y9 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 122 5600818] 01
Page 130: ntd78c00
4 5 6 12 13 20 26 0 0 undertook a special duty to the general public, cigarette smokers, the BCBS Plans' members and the BCIBS Plans themselves. 331. The BCBS Plans reasonably and justifiably relied on Defendants' materially false, incomplete and misleading representations about tobacco use, health and addiction, Defendants' failure to reveal the possibility of safer, alternative tobacco products and Defendants' nondisclosure of material facts about tobacco use and human health. As a result of such reliance, the BCBS Plans failed to take, or would have taken sooner, actions to minimize their losses from tobacco-related injuries and diseases as well as to discourage and reduce cigarette and other tobacco product use, and the costs associated therewith, by the BC/BS Plans' members. 332. Defendants' conduct as described herein is an intentional and/or negligent breach of Defendants' publicly announced special duty, special relationship or promise. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in the performance of their duty. Defendants not only did not carry out their duties and promises, but knowingly suppressed information about the adverse health effects of nicotine tobacco products; the addictive nature of those products; the possibility of an alternative, safer cigarette or alternative nicotine delivery product; and other information that would have assisted any effort to advance the public's health as it relates to nicotine tobacco use. Defendants knew and intended that their failure to fulfill their duty and promises would result in a detrimental impact on health care payers such as the BCBS Plans, as well as on the needs of the BCBS Plans' members and the general public. As a direct and proximate result of Def ndants' wrongful violation of their special duty and promises, the BC/BS Plans have had to pay for the care and treatment of nicotine-related disease, illness and addiction which has caused the BCBS Plans to suffer damages FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 $EATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3299 x06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 114 5000813701
Page 131: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 314. Defendants engaged in this fraudulent course of conduct for the purpose of influencing the market and reaping huge profits, despite Defendants' duty to disclose all material information about the known defects in their products and the hazards of using them. Defendants' fraudulent statements and conduct, including their effect upon the market for tobacco products, was a substantial cause of persuading the BC/BS Plans' members to purchase and use deadly and addictive products. Defendants also sought to fraudulently shield themselves from having to pay the health care costs of tobacco-related diseases, which they knew would be incurred and be extremely high, and to shift those costs to others, including the BCBS Plans. 315. The BC/BS Plans reasonably and justifiably relied on Defendants' materially false, incomplete and misleading representations about tobacco use, health and addiction. As a result of such reliance, the BCBS Plans did not take, or would have taken sooner, actions to minimize the losses resulting from tobacco-related injuries and diseases and to discourage and reduce cigarette and other nicotine product use and the costs associated therewith by the BC/BS Plans' members. 316. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the foregoing conduct of Defendants, the BCBS Plans have suffered damages through payments for the costs of medical care due to smoking. 317. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations and nondisclosures, the BCBS Plans have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injuries and damages for which the BCBS Plans are entitled to recovery, and for which Defendants are jointly and severally liable. ao fV -A co w ~ w (N FOSTER PEPPER R SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AYENUE, SUITE 3400 $EATTLE, WASHINCTON 98ZOI-3299 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 110 50008 187 0 1
Page 132: ntd78c00
1 2 15 16 17 25 26 (a • (i) Advertises goods, services, or property with intent not to sell them as advertised. 362. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, Rocky Mountain has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to its business or property, including but not limited to its being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 363. Rocky Mountain is a "person" within the meaning of, and is entitled to bring this action against Defendants who have engaged in deceptive trade practices under, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-1-102(6), 6-1-105 and 6-1-I 13. 364. Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113, Rocky Mountain is entitled to three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT 13. Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-104) [Against All Defendants] 365. Rocky Mountain restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and 282 through 301 of this Complaint. 366. Colorado's Antitrust Act of 1992, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-104, states, in pertinent part: Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is illegal. 367. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the market for cigarettes and other nicotine products in the United States, including the FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I1 i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9$IOI'3299 206-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 123 SOW618701
Page 133: ntd78c00
0 1 2 17 18 24 25 26 343. Defendants entered into an unlawful conspiracy to engage in all of the wrongful and unlawful conduct described herein, including: (a) suppressing information concerning the adverse effects of smoking and the addictive effect of nicotine; (b) creating doubt about scientific studies that showed the addictive nature of nicotine and linking smoking to adverse health consequences and about warnings relating thereto; (c) concealing their manipulation of the level of nicotine in tobacco products; (d) avoiding competition by agreeing not to produce safer products as substitutes for their nicotine tobacco products; and (e) misrepresenting their intentions, knowledge, goals and purposes to the Congress of the United States, state legislatures, relevant regulatory authorities, the public and to persons in the health field, including the BCBS Plans. 344. The intended purposes of this conspiracy were to deceive the citizens of the United States, including the members of the Plaintiff BCIBS Plans, as to the true nature of Defendants' products; to restrain the development of a market for a safer or alternative product; to prevent smokers and users of tobacco products from abandoning Defendants' products; and to shift nicotine- related health care costs to the BCBS Plans and other health care payers. As a proximate result of this unlawful conspiracy the BCBS Plans have been injured in their business and property and have been required to pay increased health care costs associated with tobacco-related illnesses and diseases. 345. Defendants' unlawful conduct will continue unless the relief prayed for in this Complaint is granted. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IaI-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 117 s000e16] o1
Page 134: ntd78c00
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 between an equally willing buyer and seller, which is similar to many other deceptive and/or unfair devices and practices that affect bargaining power or relative information; b. Targeting persons, including BCWA, with false and deceptive advertising by misrepresenting the characteristics, ingredients, uses or benefits of Defendants' tobacco products; and c. Engaging for decades in a wide variety of misrepresentations and fraudulent concealment of material facts, directly or by implication, including but not limited to: (1) misrepresentations and fraudulent concealment of the addictive nature of nicotine and of the adverse health consequences of tobacco products; (2) misrepresentations and fraudulent concealment about Defendants' ability to manipulate and their practice of manipulating nicotine levels and the addictive qualities of tobacco products; (3) misrepresentations that the Defendants would provide the public and governmental authorities with objective, scientific information regarding cigarettes and other tobacco products; (4) fraudulent concealment of certain aspects of cigarettes and other tobacco products, including the availability of safer, less-addictive products as a substitute to cigarettes and other tobacco products; (5) causing a likelihood of confusion about the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of cigarettes and tobacco products; (6) misrepresenting that tobacco products have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients or benefits that they do not have and that Defendants knew that they did not have; FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC [ I i i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHING70N98ioi9299 io6-447-44a0 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 119 3W0818701
Page 135: ntd78c00
390. Hawaii's Restraint of Trade Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4, states, in pertinent part: 13 14 Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in the State ... is illegal. 391. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products in the United States, including the State of Hawaii, in willful and/or flagrant violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4, Hawaii's analog to Sherman Act § 1. 392. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy alleged in Counts Three and Four above, HMSA was injured in its business and property (1) by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and/or (2) as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. 393. Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-13(a), HMSA is entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 394. HMSA is also entitled to injunctive relief directing Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to 00 reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. fV ~ ~ ~ C7 0 fV FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOi-3z99 u06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 129 5000918701
Page 136: ntd78c00
5 6 7 8 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 310. Defendants also purposefully placed themselves in a unique relationship to the BCBS Plans and their members by expressly telling the public to place special trust and confidence in Defendants' promises to discover and disclose all material facts about tobacco use, health and addiction. The BCBS Plans, which were and are responsible for providing health care financing and other health related services to their members, were in a vastly inferior position to discover truthful information about cigarettes and other tobacco products. Defendants voluntarily undertook the responsibility to discover and disclose the truth about cigarettes and other tobacco products and did so for the purpose of cultivating the trust and confidence of their consumers and of the BCBS Plans so as to induce the BC/BS Plans and their members to rely on Defendants' promises. 311. The BCBS Plans, which bear responsibility for providing health plan benefits to their members, reasonably and justifiably relied on Defendants' material misrepresentations. The BC/BS Plans lacked complete information regarding the effects of tobacco use on health, the relationship between nicotine and addiction and the manipulation of levels of nicotine delivery to ensure addiction. As a result, the BC/BS Plans justifiably relied on false or incomplete information in taking or not taking actions to discourage and reduce tobacco use by the BCBS Plans' members. 312. Defendants are aware of the dependency of the BCBS Plans and the general public on receiving complete information from government agencies concerning health risks, and have exploited this dependency to their advantage and to the detriment of the BC/BS Plans. 313. Defendants sought to induce the BC/BS Plans' reliance on Defendants' representations and promises to disclose the truth about cigarettes and other tobacco products, knowing that the BCIBS Plans and their members were in a vastly inferior position to discover the truth about cigarettes and nicotine products. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I i I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 98I0I"3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 109 50009187 01
Page 137: ntd78c00
COUNT 22. Idaho Racketeering Act (Idaho Code §§ 18-7804(a) and (d)) [Against All DefendantsJ 421. Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho restate and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 281 and paragraphs 413 through 420 of this Complaint. 422. Idaho Code §§ 18-7804(a) and (d) provide, in pertinent part: 10 11 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (a) It is unlawful for any person who has received any proceeds derived directly or indirectly from a pattern of racketeering activity in which the person has participated, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of the proceeds ... in the acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise.... (d) It is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. 423. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants was a "person" within the meaning of Idaho Code §§ 18-7803(b), as each of the Defendants was "capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property." 424. Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho have been directly injured in their businesses and property by reason of Defendants' violations of Idaho Code §§ 18-7804(a) and (d). Under the provisions of Idaho Code § 18-7805(a), Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho are entitled to bring this action and to recover three times the amount of damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98i0i-3299 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 136 soaaMaa a1
Page 138: ntd78c00
I 2 3 4 5 10 MONTANA COUNT 23. Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-205) [Against All Defendants] 425. BCBS Montana restates and incorporates herein paragraphs I through 255 and paragraphs 282 through 301 of this Complaint. 426. Montana's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-205, states, in pertinent part: It is unlawful for a person or group of persons, directly or indirectly: (1) to enter into an agreement for the purpose of fixing the price or regulating the production of an article of commerce; (2) for the purpose of creating or carrying out any restriction in trade, to: (a) limit productions; (c) prevent competition in the distribution or sale of merchandise or commodities; (h) enter into an agreement which binds any person not to manufacture, sell, or transport an article of commerce below a common standard or figure or which keeps such article or transportation at a fixed or graduated figure . . . so as to preclude unrestricted competition. 427. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in the restraint of trade or commerce in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products in the United States, including the State of Montana, in willful and/or flagrant violation of Mont. Code Ann. §36-14-205, Montana's analog to Sherman Act § 1. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, wASHINGTON 98IaI-3z99 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 137 woasiav 01
Page 139: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 23 24 25 26 continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to their businesses and property, including but not limited to their being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 405. Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho have suffered and continue to suffer damages as a result of Defendants' use or employment of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices and are "persons" within the meaning of, and are entitled to bring this action, under Idaho Code § 48-608. 406. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 48-608, Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho are entitled to recover the amount of actual damages sustained, punitive damages, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT 20. Idaho Antitrust Act (Idaho Code § 48-101) [Against All Defendants] 407. Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho restate and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraphs 282 through 301 of this Complaint. 408. Idaho's Antitrust Act, Idaho Code § 48-101, states, in pertinent part: Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade of commerce, within this state is hereby declared to be illegal. 409. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products in the United States, including the FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3299 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 132 ]0008187 01
Page 140: ntd78c00
i 4 10 11 18 19 20 21 ensure addiction. As a result, the BCBS Plans justifiably relied on materially incomplete information in taking or not taking actions to discourage and reduce tobacco use by the BCBS Plans' members. 323. Defendants engaged in this course of active concealment for the purpose of influencing the market and reaping huge profits, despite Defendants' duty to disclose all material information about the known defects in their products and the hazards of using them. Defendants' fraudulent concealment was a substantial cause of persuading the BCBS Plans' members to purchase and use deadly and addictive products. Defendants also sought to fraudulently shield themselves from having to pay the health care costs of tobacco-related diseases, which they knew would be incurred and be extremely high, and to shift those costs to others, including the BC/BS Plans. 324. The facts concealed by Defendants about tobacco use, health and addiction were material in that a reasonable consumer would have considered them important in deciding whether to purchase and smoke cigarettes. The facts concealed by Defendants about tobacco use, health and addiction were material in that a reasonable provider of health plan benefits or payer for health care costs would have considered them important in deciding how to best provide and pay for comprehensive health care. 325. The BC/BS Plans and their members reasonably and justifiably relied on Defendants' nondisclosures of material facts about cigarette smoking, use of other tobacco products and health. As a result of such reliance, the BCBS Plans failed to take, or would have taken sooner, actions to minimize their losses resulting from tobacco-related injuries and diseases and to discourage and FOSTER PEPPER R SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98ICI-3299 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 112 5M8187 0 l
Page 141: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 tobacco-related diseases. Rocky Mountain has been unable to participate in a health care market where there would have been alternative safer or less addictive cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have reduced costs and expenses attributable to tobacco-related diseases, or to advise, suggest, promote, subsidize or require its members to choose to use effective alternative products, such as safer or less addictive cigarettes or other nicotine products. Rocky Mountain was unable to reduce the costs of tobacco-related diseases of its members because it detrimentally relied on the false and fraudulent statements and information disseminated through an enterprise conducted by the Defendants through a pattern of racketeering activity. In the absence of Defendants' violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 207.400(1)(c) and (h), these costs and expenses would have been substantially reduced. 461. This injury is not a form of compensation for personal injuries suffered by smokers, and it is not a derivative injury of the harm caused to smokers. It is separate economic injury directly to the business and property of Rocky Mountain, and is wholly distinct from the harms suffered by individuals. Rocky Mountain suffered economic injury from the Defendants' violations of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 207.400(l)(c) and (h) because it was obligated to pay for substantially all of the health care costs of its members. No other person has standing to bring an action for the recovery of damages for this direct injury caused by the Defendants' actions. 20 462. The consumption of tobacco products by the members of Rocky Mountain, and by 21 22 consumers throughout the United States, was the very object of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, 23 and those products were used by Rocky Mountain members precisely as Defendants intended. The 24 injury thus inflicted on Rocky Mountain by the Defendants was both foreseeable and intended. 25 26 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I[ I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98IaI'3299 eo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 145 ~p'JOH1d"/a1
Page 142: ntd78c00
(3) It is unlawful for any person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to knowingly conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.... 4 5 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (4) It is unlawful for any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection ...(3) of this section. 373. At all relevant times, for the reasons set forth in Counts One and Two of this Complaint, each of the Tobacco Companies and Hill and Knowlton was a "person" within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-103(4), as each of the Tobacco Companies and Hill and Knowlton was "capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property." 374. At all relevant times, for the reasons set forth in Counts One and Two of this Complaint, the Tobacco Institute, CTR (formerly TIRC) and STRC each constituted an "enterprise" within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-103 and have together constituted an "enterprise" (collectively, the "Public Relations Enterprise") within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-103. 375. Defendants' violations of Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-17-104(3) and (4) have proximately caused direct injury to the business and property of Rocky Mountain because it has been required to incur significant costs and expenses attributable to tobacco-related diseases. Rocky Mountain has been unable to participate in a health care market where there would have been alternative safer or less addictive cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have reduced costs and expenses attributable to tobacco-related diseases, or to advise, suggest, promote, subsidize or require its participants or its beneficiaries to choose to use effective alternative products, such as safer or less addictive cigarettes or other nicotine products. Rocky Mountain was unable to reduce the costs of tobacco-related diseases of its members because it detrimentally relied on the false and fraudulent statements and information disseminated through an enterprise conducted by the Defendants through FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 982oi'3299 >.06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 125 50008I8"/01
Page 143: ntd78c00
414. Idaho Code § 18-7804 states in pertinent part: (c) It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of such enterprise by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity.. . . 7 8 14 21 22 23 24 25 26 (d) It is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (c) of this section.... 415. At all relevant times, for the reasons set forth in Counts One and Two of this Complaint, each of the Tobacco Companies and Hill and Knowlton was a "person" within the meaning of Idaho Code § 18-7803(b), as each of the Tobacco Companies and Hill and Knowlton was "capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property." 416. At all relevant times, for the reasons set forth in Counts One and Two of this Complaint, the Tobacco Institute, CTR (formerly TIRC) and STRC each constituted an "enterprise" within the meaning of Idaho Code § 18-7803 and have together constituted an "enterprise" (collectively, the "Public Relations Enterprise") within the meaning of Idaho Code § 18-7803. 417. Defendants' violations of Idaho Code §§ 18-7804(c) and (d) have proximately caused direct injury to the businesses and property of Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho because they have been required to incur significant costs and expenses attributable to tobacco-related diseases. Regence- Idaho and BC-Idaho have been unable to participate in a health care market where there would have been alternative safer or less addictive cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have reduced costs and expenses attributable to tobacco-related diseases, or to advise, suggest, promote, subsidize or require its members to choose to use effective alternative products, such as safer or less addictive cigarettes. Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho were unable to reduce the costs of tobacco-related diseases of their members because they detrimentally relied on the false and fraudul`ent statements and FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I i i THIRD AVENUE, $UITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON y8ial-3399 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 134 5onos s 01
Page 144: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 400. Pursuant to Idaho Code §48-406, Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho are entitled to recover the amount of actual damages they sustained and an order enjoining Defendants from continuing to engage in acts in violation of Idaho Code §48-412. COUNT 19. Idaho Consumer Protection Act (Idaho Code § 48-603) [Against All Defendants] 401. Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho restate and incorporate herein paragraphs I through 255 and paragraph 349 of this Complaint. 402. The Idaho Consumer Protection Act, Idaho Code § 48-603, states, in pertinent part: 12 13 14 15 The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared to be unlawful, where a person knows, or in the exercise of due care should know, that he has in the past, or is: (5) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have.. . . (17) Engaging in any act or practice which is otherwise misleading, false, or deceptive to the consumer[.] (18) Engaging in any unconscionable method, act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce as provided in Section 48-603C, Idaho Code.. . . 21 22 23 24 25 26 403. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint constitutes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Idaho Code § 48- 603. 404. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, as purchasers of provider and other health-related services and products, Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho have suffered and will FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-33y9 ao6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 131 J11008 [97 01
Page 145: ntd78c00
6 7 8 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Any contract, combination, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce shall be unlawful. 439. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products in the United States, including the State of Nebraska, in willful and/or flagrant violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1603, Nebraska's analog to Sherman Act § 1. 440. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy alleged in Counts Three and Four above, BCBS Nebraska was injured in its business and property (1) by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and/or (2) as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. 441. Pursuant to Neb. Rev, Stat. § 59-1609, BC/BS Nebraska is entitled to recover the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 442. BC/BS Nebraska is also entitled to injunctive relief ordering Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendant to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I i I THIRD AYENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 93IOI-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 140 50W819] 01
Page 146: ntd78c00
1 2 3 17 IDAHO COUNT 18. Idaho Unfair Sales Act (Idaho Code § 48-412) [Against All Defendants] 395. Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho restate and incorporate herein paragraphs I through 255 and paragraph 349 of this Complaint. 396. Idaho's Unfair Sales Act, Idaho Code § 48-412, states in pertinent part: It is hereby declared to be unlawful, unfair competition ... for any manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer to advertise for sale, offer for sale or sell any goods, wares or merchandise where the advertisement contains any assertion, representation or statement which is untrue, deceptive or misleading, or falsely represents the kind, classification, grade of quality of the goods, wares or merchandise so advertised. 397. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint constitutes deceptive and unfair methods of competition, all impacting the public interest, in violation of Idaho Code §48-412. 398. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, Regence-Idaho and BC- Idaho have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to their businesses or property, including but not limited to their being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 399. Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho have suffered and continue to suffer an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of Defendants' unlawful methods, acts and practices and are "persons" within the meaning of, and are entitled to bring this action, under Idaho Code §48-406. FOSTER PEPPER & SPIEFELMAN PLLC I I i ITHIRD AV ENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3199 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 130 50008 137 01
Page 147: ntd78c00
5 6 7 14 15 21 463. Under the provisions of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 207.470(1), Rocky Mountain is entitled to bring this action and to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT 29. Nevada Racketeering Law (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 207.400(1)(a) and (h)) [Against All Defendants] 464. Rocky Mountain restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 281 and 456 through 463 of this Complaint. 465. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 207.400(1)(a) and (h) provide, in pertinent part: (a) It is unlawful for a person who has with criminal intent received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity to use or invest, whether directly or indirectly, any part of the proceeds ... in the acquisition of ... any interest in or the establishment or operation of any enterprise. (h) It is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of this section. 466. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants was a "person" within the meaning of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.400(1). 467. Rocky Mountain has been directly injured in its business and property by reason of Defendants' violations of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 207.400(1)(a) and (h). Undcr the provisions of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.470(1), Rocky Mountain is entitled to bring this action and to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, $UITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I0I-31yg xo6-q47-qqoo \0 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 146 5W0818'!01
Page 148: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 15 16 17 18 • i cigarettes and other tobacco products and as a consequence to suffer diseases and illnesses related to the use of the Tobacco Companies' products. 338. The BCBS Plans have paid, and continue to pay, for health care benefits incurred by their members for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases and illnesses related to the use of the Tobacco Companies' tobacco products. 339. Because the BC/BS Plans have expended sums which Defendants had, and continue to have, a duty to pay but have avoided paying by deceit, mendacious lobbying efforts, propaganda, scorched-earth and illicit and deceptive litigation tactics and other means, the BCBS Plans have conferred a benefit upon Defendants. 340. Inasmuch as Defendants caused the health care expenses to be incurred through the use of fraudulent and unlawful means and breaches of a special and assumed duty as described in this Complaint, and avoided paying such expenses by illicit means, Defendants' retention of the benefit so conferred upon them by the BC/BS Plans would be unjust. 341. In equity and good conscience, Defendants should be ordered to pay restitution to the BC/BS Plans those sums expended, and to be expended in the future, by the BC/BS Plans to cover the comprehensive health care costs and related services incurred by their members as a result of Defendants' conduct. COUNT 9. CONSPIRACY [Against All Defendants] 342. The BC/BS Plans restate and incorporate herein paragraphs I through 255 of this Complaint. 26 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC [ I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON98I01-j299 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 116 SOpUBi87 01
Page 149: ntd78c00
11 12 18 NEVADA COUNT 26. Nevada Consumer Fraud Act (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 41.600, 598.0915) lAgainst All Defendants] 443. Rocky Mountain restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraph 349 of this Complaint. 444. Nevada's Consumer Fraud Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915, states, in pertinent part: A person engages in a "deceptive trade practice" if, in the course of his business or occupation, he: (2) Knowingly makes a false representation as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services. (5) Knowingly makes a false representation as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations or quantities of goods or services or a false representation as to the sponsorship, approval status, affiliation or connection of a person therewith. (7) Represents that its goods or services are of a particular standard, quality or grade ... if he knows or should know that they are of another. (9) Advertises goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. 445. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0925 states, in pertinent part: 24 25 26 [al person engages in a "deceptive trade practice" when, in the course of his business or occupation, he: (a) Makes an assertion of scientific, clinical or quantifiable fact in an advertisement which would cause a reasonable person to believe that the assertion is true, unless, at the time the assertion is made, the person making it has possession of factually objective scientific, clinical or quantifiable evidence which substantiates the assertion [.] FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I t I I-rH1RD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98IoI-j299 2a6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 141 5000 187 01
Page 150: ntd78c00
1 6 NEW MEXICO COUNT 30. New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-3) [Against All Defendants] 468. BC/BS New Mexico restates and incorporates herein paragraphs I through 255 and paragraph 349 of this Complaint. 469. New Mexico's Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-3, states: Unfair or deceptive trade practices and unconscionable trade practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful. 470. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint constitutes unfair and/or deceptive trade practices and unconscionable trade practices and methods of competition, all impacting the public interest, in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-3. 471. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, BCBS New Mexico has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to its business or property, including but not limited to its being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 472. BC/BS New Mexico has suffered and continues to suffer losses of money or property as a result of Defendants' employment of methods, acts or practices declared unlawful by the N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-3, and is a "person" within the meaning of, and is entitled to bring this action, 23 24 25 26 under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-10. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 io6-qq7-q4oo FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 147 5M]010] 01
Page 151: ntd78c00
1 • • 353. Pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(a), BCWA is entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained by it and such other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. COUNT 11. 9 10 21 22 23 24 25 26 Alaska Restraint of Trade Act (Alaska Stat. § 450.50.562) [Against All Defendants] 354. BCWA restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and 282 through 301 of this Complaint. 355. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.562 states, in pertinent part: Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in the restraint of trade or commerce is unlawful. 356. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the market for cigarettes and other nicotine products in the United States, including the State of Alaska, in willful and/or flagrant violation of Alaska Stat. § 45.50.562, Alaska's analog to Sherman Act § 1. 357. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy alleged in Counts Three and Four above, BCWA was injured in its business and property (1) by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and/or (2) as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. FOSTER PEPPER & SF9EFELMAN PLLC I I3I THIRO AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 98IOI-3299 206-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 121 aooosiev 01
Page 152: ntd78c00
5 6 7 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 428. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy alleged in Counts Three and Four above, BC/BS Montana was injured in its business and property (1) by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and/or (2) as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. 429. Pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-222, BCIBS Montana is entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained. 430. BC/BS Montana is also entitled to injunctive relief directing Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. NEBRASKA COUNT 24. Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1602) [Against All Defendants] 431. BC/BS Nebraska restates and incorporates herein paragraphs I through 255 and paragraph 349 of this Complaint. 432. Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1602, states, in pertinent part: FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 ~1~6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 138 sooaeia7 01
Page 153: ntd78c00
7 13 14 15 16 information disseminated through an enterprise conducted by the Defendants through a pattern of racketeering activity. In the absence of Defendants' violations of Idaho Code §§ 18-7804(c) and (d), these costs and expenses would have been substantially reduced. 418. This injury is not a form of compensation for personal injuries suffered by smokers, and it is not a derivative injury of the harm caused to smokers. It is separate economic injury directly to the business and property of Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho, and is wholly distinct from the harms suffered by individuals. Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho suffered economic injury from the Defendants' violations of Idaho Code §§ 18-7804(c) and (d) because they were obligated to pay for substantially all of the health care costs of their members. No other person has standing to bring an action for the recovery of damages for this direct injury caused by the Defendants' actions. 419. The consumption of tobacco products by the members of Regence-Idaho and BC- Idaho, and by consumers throughout the United States, was the very object of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, and those products were used by Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho members precisely as Defendants intended. The injury thus inflicted on Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho by the Defendants was both foreseeable and intended. 420. Under the provisions of Idaho Code § 18-7805(a), Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho are entitled to bring this action and to recover three times the amount of damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I i I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 $EATTLE, WASHINGTON98I0I-3299 206-44p4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 135 5000B18] 01
Page 154: ntd78c00
473. Pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-10, BCBS New Mexico is entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT 31. 6 12 13 19 20 New Mexico False Advertising Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-15-1) [Against All Defendants] 474. BCBS New Mexico restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraph 349 of this Complaint. 475. New Mexico's False Advertising Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 57-15-1 and 57-15-2, states in pertinent part: False advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce .. . in this State is hereby declared unlawful. The term false advertising means advertising, including labeling, which is misleading in any material respect.... 476. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint constitutes false advertising, all impacting the public interest, in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-15-1. 477. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, BC/BS New Mexico has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to its business or property, including but not limited to its being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98IOI-3299 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 148 SOOD81 97 01
Page 155: ntd78c00
1 2 9 10 II 12 13 14 20 21 22 23 446. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint constitutes deceptive and unfair methods of competition, all impacting the public interest, in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915. 447. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, Rocky Mountain has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to its business or property, including but not limited to its being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 448. Rocky Mountain was and continues to be injured in its business or property by reason of Defendants' violations of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915, and is a "person" within the meaning of, and is entitled to bring this action, under Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 41.600 and 598.0915. 449. Pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600, Rocky Mountain is entitled to recover the damages it sustained as a result of Defendants' wrongful activity. COUNT 27. Nevada Unfair Trade Practices Act (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060) [Against All Defendantsl 450. Rocky Mountain restates and incorporates herein paragraphs I through 255 and paragraphs 282 through 301 of this Complaint. 451. Nevada's Unfair Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060, states, in pertinent part: 24 11 Every activity enumerated below . . . constitutes a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade, and it is unlawful to / ' ° d t rt f h t' ' ~ th' t t n a e t y suc ac Lvi . con uc any pa o a y m is s 26 POSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I[ I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9810I'3299 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 142 S0a0619'/U1
Page 156: ntd78c00
1 2 3 10 19 20 Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce shall be unlawful. 433. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint constitutes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, all impacting the public interest, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1602. 434. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, BC/BS Nebraska has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to its business or property, including but not limited to its being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 435. BCBS Nebraska was and continues to be injured in its business or property by reason of Defendants' violations of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1602, and is a "person" within the meaning of, and is entitled to bring this action, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1609. 436. Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1609, BC/BS Nebraska is entitled to recover the amount of damages actually sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT 25. Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1603) [Against All Defendants] 437. BCBS Nebraska restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraphs 282 through 301 of this Complaint. 438. Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1603, states, in pertinent part: FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I II THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 98101-3299 ia6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 139 S0aoS1fi'!01
Page 157: ntd78c00
(1) Price fixing, which consists of raising, depressing, fixing, pegging or stabilizing the price of any commodity or service, and which includes, but is not limited to: 6 7 8 15 16 (m) Agreements to discontinue a product or agreements with anyone engaged in the manufacturer of competitive lines to limit size, styles of quantities of items comprising the lines. (n) Agreements to restrict volume of production 452. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products in the United States, including the State of Nevada, in willful and/or flagrant violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060, Nevada's analog to Sherman Act § 1. 453. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy alleged in Counts Three and Four above, Rocky Mountain was injured in its business and property (1) by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and/or (2) as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. 454. Pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.210, Rocky Mountain is entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 455. Rocky Mountain is also entitled to injunctive relief directing Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WAStHNGTON98IOI'3299 106-447'4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 143 saoosie7 01
Page 158: ntd78c00
1 2 7 14 15 22 23 24 25 26 478. BCBS New Mexico is a "private citizen" within the meaning of, and is entitled to bring this action under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-15-5. 479. Pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-15-5, BCBS New Mexico is entitled to an order enjoining Defendants' violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-15-1, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT 32. New Mexico Restraints of Trade Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1-1) [Against All Defendants] 480. BC/BS New Mexico restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraphs 282 through 301 of this Complaint. 481. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1-1 states: Every contract, agreement, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce, any part of which trade or commerce is within this state, is unlawful. 482. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products in the United States, including the State of New Mexico, in willful and/or flagrant violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1-1, New Mexico's analog to Sherman Act § 1. 483. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy alleged in Counts Three and Four above, BC/BS New Mexico was injured in its business and property (1) by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have •FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 149 SOOOBIBJ 01
Page 159: ntd78c00
(5) Represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have.. . ; (9) Advertises goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised; Il 12 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (12) Engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding. 385. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint constitutes deceptive and unfair trade practices, all impacting the public interest, in violation ofHaw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3. 386. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, HMSA has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to its business or property, including but not limited to its being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 387. HMSA is likely to be damaged and has been damaged by Defendants' deceptive trade practices and is a "person" within the meaning of, and is entitled to bring this action, under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-4(a). 388. Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-4, HMSA is entitled to an order enjoining Defendants from engaging in consumer fraud and deceptive and unfair trade practices, as well as the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. co N COUNT 17. -r' aD Hawaii Restraint of Trade Act ---. O (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4) o ~ [Against All Defendants] 389. HMSA restates and incorporates herein paragraphs I through 255 and paragraphs 282 through 301 of this Complaint. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I i I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 ao6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLATNT- 128 50008187 01
Page 160: ntd78c00
5 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. COUNT 28. Nevada Racketeering Law (Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 207.400(1)(c) and (h)) [Against All Defendants except the Council For Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute and the Smokeless Tobacco Research Council, Inc.] 456. Rocky Mountain restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 281 of this Complaint. 457. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.400(1) states in pertinent part: (c) It is unlawful for a person who is employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of the enterprise through racketeering activity or racketeering activity through the affairs of the enterprise. (h) It is unlawful for a person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of this section. 458. At all relevant times, for the reasons set forth in Counts One and Two of this Complaint, each of the Tobacco Companies and Hill and Knowlton was a "person" within the meaning of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.400(I). 459. At all relevant times, for the reasons set forth in Counts One and Two of this Complaint, the Tobacco Institute, CTR (formerly TIRC) and STRC each constituted an "enterprise" within the meaning of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.400 and have together constituted an "enterprise") (collectively, the "Public Relations Enterprise") within the meaning of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.400. 460. The Tobacco Companies' and Hill and Knowlton's violations of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 207.400(1)(c) and (h) have proximately caused direct injury to the business and property of Rocky Mountain because it has been required to incur significant costs and expenses attributable to FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I Z I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON9BI0I'3299 - 106-447'4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 144 s0aos197 01
Page 161: ntd78c00
6 7 8 9 10 18 19 20 21 existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and/or (2) as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. 484. Pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1-3(A), BC/BS New Mexico is entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 485. BC/BS New Mexico is also entitled to injunctive relief directing Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. COUNT 33. New Mexico Racketeering Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-42-4(C) and (D)) [Against All Defendants except the Council For Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute and the Smokeless Tobacco Research Council, Inc.1 486. BC/BS New Mexico restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 281 of this Complaint. 487. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-42-4 states, in pertinent part: (C) It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity.. . . (D) It is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of Subsection ...(C) of this section.... 488. At all relevant times, for the reasons set forth in Counts One and Two of this Complaint, each of the Tobacco Companies and Hill and Knowlton was a "person" within the FOSTER PEPPER & SHEPELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98IOI•3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 150 S~B187 01
Page 162: ntd78c00
I 7 14 15 16 23 24 25 26 Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and/or (2) as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. 528. Pursuant to Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.21(a), BCBS Texas is entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees. 529. BC/BS Texas is also entitled to injunctive relief directing Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. UTAH COUNT 40. Utah Truth in Advertising Act (Utah Code Ann. § 13-11a-3) [Against All Defendants] 530. Regence-Utah restates and incorporates herein paragraphs I through 255 and paragraph 349 of this Complaint. 531. Utah's Truth in Advertising Act, Utah Code Ann. § 13-11 a-3, states, in pertinent part: Deceptive trade practices occur when, in the course of his business ... FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC III I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 961vi-3199 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 160 5ooas1roi
Page 163: ntd78c00
1 11 State of Idaho, in willful and/or flagrant violation of Idaho Code § 48-101, Idaho's analog to 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sherman Act § 1. 410. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy alleged in Counts Three and Four above, Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho were injured in their businesses and property (1) by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that 8 would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and/or (2) as customers in the broad 9 market for drugs, and potential customers in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other 10 nicotine products. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 411. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 48-114, Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho are entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 412. Regence-Idaho and BC Idaho are also entitled to injunctive relief directing Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. COUNT 21. Idaho Racketeering Act (Idaho Code §§ 18-7804(c) and (d)) [Against All Defendants except the Council For Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute and the Smokeless Tobacco Research Council, Inc.] 413. Regence-Idaho and BC-Idaho restate and incorporate herein paragraphs I through 281 of this Complaint. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i I i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9810I-3199 xo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 133 soaae1s7ui
Page 164: ntd78c00
1 COUNT 38. 2 Oregon Antitrust Act (Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.725) 3 [Against All DefendantsJ 4 518. Regence-Oregon and LifeWise restate and incorporate herein paragraphs I through 5 6 255 and paragraphs 282 through 301 of this Complaint. 7 519. Oregon's Antitrust Law, Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.725, states: 8 16 17 Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is declared to be illegal. 520. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products in the United States, including the State of Oregon, in willful and/or flagrant violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.725, Oregon's analog to Sherman Act § 1. 521. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy alleged in Counts Three and Four above, Regence-Oregon and LifeWise were injured in their businesses and property (1) by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and/or (2) as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. 522. Pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.780(1)(a), Regence-Oregon and LifeWise are entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIflD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON93IOi-3299 ro6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 158 ~s1e 01
Page 165: ntd78c00
I (e) Represents that ... goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that they do not have.. . . (i) Advertises ... goods or services with intent not to provide them as advertised. . . . (u) Engages in any other unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce. 9 10 17 18 24 25 26 514. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint constitutes unconscion- able, deceptive and/or unfair methods of competition, all impacting the public interest, in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.607 and 646.608. 515. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, Regence-Oregon and LifeWise has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to their businesses or property, including but not limited to their being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 516. Regence-Oregon and LifeWise has suffered and continues to suffer ascertainable losses of money or property as a result of Defendants' willful use of practices declared unlawful by Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.607 and 646.608, and are "persons" within the meaning of, and are entitled to bring this action, under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.638. 517. Pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.638, Regence-Oregon and LifeWise are entitled to recover actual damages they sustained, punitive damages, the costs of bringing this suit and CID reasonable attorneys' fees. N .ta ~ 4~ O W 0 FOSTER PEPPER Y SHEFELMAN PLLC [ I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98IGI'3299 2o6-447•4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 157 300001B1 UI
Page 166: ntd78c00
violations of N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-42-4(C) and (D) because it was obligated to pay for substantially all of the health care costs of its members. No other person has standing to bring an action for the 7 8 14 15 16 17 recovery of damages for this direct injury caused by the Tobacco Companies' and Hill and Knowlton's actions. 492. The consumption of tobacco products by the members of BCBS New Mexico, and by consumers throughout the United States, was the very object of this wrongful conduct, and those products were used by BC/BS New Mexico members precisely as intended. The injury thus inflicted on BCBS New Mexico was both foreseeable and intended. 493. Under the provisions of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-42-6, BCBS New Mexico is entitled to bring this action and to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT 34. New Mexico Racketeering Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-42-4(A) and (D)) [Against All Defendants] 494. BC/BS New Mexico restates and incorporates herein paragraphs I through 255 and paragraphs 486 through 493 of this Complaint. 495. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-42-4 states in pertinent part: (A) It is unlawful for any person who has received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity in which the person has participated, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any partt of the proceeds . . . in . . . the establishment or operation of, any enterprise.. . . 24 25 26 (D) It is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of Subsection ...(A) of this section. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOi•32y9 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 152 JM8181 DI
Page 167: ntd78c00
0 8 9 10 11 12 19 509. Pursuant to Okla. Stat tit. 79, § 25, BC/BS Oklahoma is entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 510. BCBS Oklahoma is also entitled to injunctive relief directing Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. OREGON COUNT 37. Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.607, 646.608) [Against All Defendants] 511. Regence-Oregon and LifeWise restate and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraph 349 of the Complaint. 512. Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.607 states, in pertinent part: A person engages in an unlawful practice when in the course of the person's business ... the person: (1) Employs any unconscionable tactic in connection with sale ... of. . . goods or services.. . . 513. Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608, states, in pertinent part: (1) A person engages in an unlawful practice when in the course of the CX) person's business... the person does any of the following: N -la (b) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the ~ source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of... goods or services. p fV .10 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRU AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98iroI-3199 xo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 156 500091 87 01
Page 168: ntd78c00
6 7 541. Regence-Utah is also entitled to injunctive relief directing Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. COUNT 42. Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act (Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-1603(3) and (4) [Against All Defendants except the Council For Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute and the Smokeless Tobacco Research Council, Inc.] 542. Regence-Utah restates and incorporates herein paragraphs I through 281 of this Complaint. 543. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1603 states in pertinent part: (3) It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, whether directly or indirectly, in the conduct of that enterprise's affairs through a pattern of unlawful activity. 17 18 19 20 (4) It is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of Subsection ... (3). 544. At all relevant times, for the reasons set forth in Counts One and Two of this Complaint, each of the Tobacco Companies and Hill and Knowlton was a"person" within the meaning of Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1602(3), as each of the Tobacco Companies and Hill and Knowlton was "capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property." 545. At all relevant times, for the reasons set forth in Counts One and Two of this Complaint, the Tobacco Institute, CTR (formerly TIRC) and STRC each constituted an "enterprise" with the meaning of Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1602 and have together constituted an "enterprise" FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I r I i THIRD AVENUE. SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON98I0I-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 163 5000BI8) 01
Page 169: ntd78c00
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 '14 15 16 17 8 19 26 COUNT 41. Utah Antitrust Act (Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-914) [Against All Defendantsl 536. Regence-Utah restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraphs 282 through 301 of this Complaint. 537. Utah's Antitrust Act, Utah Code Ann. § 76-16-914, states, in pertinent part: Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is declared to be illegal[.] 538. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products in the United States, including the State of Utah, in willful and/or flagrant violation of Utah Code Ann. § 75-10-914, Utah's analog to Sherman Act § 1. 539. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy alleged in Counts Three and Four above, Regence-Utah was injured in its business and property (1) by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine tobacco products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct or (2) as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. 540. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-919(1)(b), Regence-Utah is entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i i i i THIRD AVENUE, $UITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 162 5000816) 01
Page 170: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 523. Regence-Oregon and LifeWise are also entitled to injunctive relief directing Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. TEXAS COUNT 39. Texas Antitrust Act (Tex. Bus. & Corn. Code Ann. § 15.05) [Against All Defendants] 524. BC/BS Texas restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraphs 282 through 301 of this Complaint. 525. The Texas Antitrust Act, Tex. Bus. & Com Code Ann. § 15.05, states, in pertinent 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 part: Every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade is unlawful. 526. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products in the United States, including the State of Texas, in willful and/or flagrant violation of Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 15.05, Texas' analog to Sherman Act. 527. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy alleged in Counts Three and Four above, BC/BS Texas was injured in its business and property (1) by reason of POSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I i i I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON98LO[-3299 2a6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 159 50W81s]01
Page 171: ntd78c00
I 2 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 173 sooas1si oi DEWEY BALLANTINE LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019-6092 (212) 259-8000 Of Counsel: Paul J. Bschorr Vincent R. FitzPatrick, Jr. Robert J. Morrow Michael C. Hefter Heather K. McDevitt 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-4605 Of Counsel: Martha J. Talley Attorneys for Plaintiffs The BCBS Plans FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIAD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINOTON9BI01•3299 2o6-447-4400
Page 172: ntd78c00
(b) A person causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the service, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services. (e) A person represents that good or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or qualities that they do not have.. . . 5 6 (g) A person represents that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade.. . . (i) A person advertises goods or services . . . with intent not to sell them as advertised. 15 532. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint constitutes deceptive and unfair trade practices, all impacting the public interest, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 13-I 1 a-3. 533. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, Regence-Utah has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to its business or property, including but not limited to its being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 534. Regence-Utah was and continues to be injured by Defendants' acts in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 13-11a-3, and is a "person" within the meaning of, and is entitled to bring this action under, Utah Code Ann. § 13-11a-4. 535. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 13-11a-4, Regence-Utah is entitled to judgment requiring Defendants to engage in corrective advertising practices and allowing Regence-Utah to recover the actual damages it sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTOY 98101-3199 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 161 50006187 01
Page 173: ntd78c00
1 7 13 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 VII. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, the BC/BS Plans respectfully demand a jury on all triable issues. VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the BCBS Plans pray for relief and judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. Adjudging and decreeing that Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged herein, acting in concert and declaring that by such conduct, Defendants have violated: the provisions of the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act; the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act; the common law of Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming and the statutory law of each of said states as asserted herein, and any other similar statute or law that may be found applicable to Defendants' conduct. 2. Enjoining and restraining Defendants and their officers, agents, servants and employees, and those in active concert or participation with them, from continuing to engage in or engaging in restraints of trade, racketeering, unfair and deceptive trade practices and other wrongful or unlawful conduct similar in purpose or effect to the wrongful or unlawful conduct described herein and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, ordering Defendants and their officers, agents, servants and employees, and those in active concert or participation with them: a. To cease and desist from conspiring to suppress the research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes and other tobacco products and to take such further steps as the Court shall deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy; FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i l I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3299 io6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 170 sooosu 01
Page 174: ntd78c00
I 2 3 4 11 12 13 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 meaning of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-42-3(B), as each of the Tobacco Companies and Hill and Knowlton was "capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property." 489. At all relevant times, for the reasons set forth in Counts One and Two of this Complaint, the Tobacco Institute, CTR (formerly TIRC) and STRC each constituted an "enterprise" within the meaning of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-42-3 and have together constituted an "enterprise" (collectively, the "Public Relations Enterprise") within the meaning of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-42-3. 490. Defendants' violations of N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-42-4(C) and (D) have proximately caused direct injury to the business and property of BC/BS New Mexico because it has been required to incur significant costs and expenses attributable to tobacco-related diseases. BCBS New Mexico has been unable to participate in a health care market where there would have been alternative safer or less addictive cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have reduced costs and expenses attributable to tobacco-related diseases, or to advise, suggest, promote, subsidize or require its' members to choose to use effective alternative products, such as safer or less addictive cigarettes or other nicotine products. BC/BS New Mexico was unable to reduce the costs of tobacco-related diseases of its members because it detrimentally relied on the false and fraudulent statements and information disseminated through an enterprise conducted by the Defendants through a pattern of racketeering activity. In the absence of these violations of N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-42-4(C) and (D), these costs and expenses would have been substantially reduced. 491. This injury is not a form of compensation for personal injuries suffered by smokers, and it is not a derivative injury of the harm caused to smokers. It is separate economic injury directly to the business and property of BC/BS New Mexico, and is wholly distinct from the harms suffered by individuals. BCBS New Mexico suffered economic injury from the Defendants' FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IaI'3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 151 5M0819]UI
Page 175: ntd78c00
1 2 3 A person engages in a deceptive trade practice unlawful under this act, when, in the course of his business and in connection with a consumer transaction, he knowingly: (i) Represents that merchandise has a source, origin, sponsorship, approval, accessories or uses it does not have; (iii) Represents that merchandise is of a particular standard, grade, style or model, if it is not; 10 I1 12 13 19 25 26 (x) Advertises merchandise with intent not to sell it as advertised(.] 568. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint constitutes deceptive trade practices, all in the course of trade or commerce and impacting the public'interest, in violation of Wyoming Stat. § 40-12-105. 569. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity., BCBS Wyoming has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to its business or property, including but not limited to its being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 570. BCBS Wyoming has relied and continues to rely on Defendants' uncured unlawful deceptive trade practices, and is a "person" within the meaning of, and is entitled to bring this action, under Wyoming Stat. § 40-12-150. 571. Pursuant to Wyoming Stat. § 40-12-108(a), BCBS Wyoming is entitled to recover the damages it has sustained as a result of Defendants' unlawful trade practices. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I[ THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 zo6-447'4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 169 3000818] 01
Page 176: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (8) Advertises, knowingly or with reason to know, the subject of a consumer transaction with intent not to sell it as advertised; (20) Commits an unfair or deceptive trade practice as defined in Section 752 of this title [] 500. Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 752 states, in pertinent part: (l1) "Deceptive trade practice" means a misrepresentation, omission or other practice that has deceived or could reasonably be expected to deceive or mislead a person to the detriment of that person.... (12) "Unfair trade practice" means any practice which offends established public policy or if the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers [] 21 501. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint constitutes deceptive and unfair trade practices, all impacting the public interest, that has deceived or could reasonably be expected to deceive and/or offends established public policy, is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and/or substantially injurious, in violation of Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 753. 502. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, BC/BS Oklahoma has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to its business or property, including but not limited to its being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 503. BCBS Oklahoma is an "aggrieved consumer" within the meaning of, and is entitled to bring this action, under Okla. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 761.1. 504. Pursuant to Okla. Stat. Rev. Ann. tit. 15, § 761.1, BCBS Oklahoma is entitled to recover actual damages it sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 $EATTLE, WASHINGTON98=0I-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 154 f00091s7 0l
Page 177: ntd78c00
1 2 13 21 22 23 24 25 26 COUNT 36. Oklahoma Combinations in Restraint of Trade Act (Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 1) [Against All Defendants] 505. BCBS Oklahoma restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraphs 282 through 301 of this Complaint. 506. Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § I states: Every act, agreement, contract, or combination in the form of trust, or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce within this state is hereby declared to be against public policy and illegal. 507. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products in the United States, including the State of Oklahoma, in willful and/or flagrant violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 1, Oklahoma's analog to Sherman Act § 1. 508. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy alleged in Counts Three and Four above, BC/BS Oklahoma was injured in its business and property (1) by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and/or (2) as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. co fV -L' Oo -P. Ca t~a Cr~ FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOI-3199 106-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 155 5000916) 01
Page 178: ntd78c00
1 violations of RCW 19.86.020, and are "persons" within the meaning of, and are entitled to bring this action under, RCW 19.86.090. 559. Pursuant to RCW 19.86.090, Regence-Washington, Regence-Oregon, Regence-Idaho, Northwest Medical and, BCWA, and MSC are entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT 45. Washington Unfair Business Practices - Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86.030)/Washington State Constitution [Against All Defendants] 560. Regence-Washington, Regence-Oregon, Regence-Idaho, Northwest Medical, BCWA, and MSC restate and incorporate herein paragraphs I through 255 and 282 through 301 of this Complaint. 561. RCW 19.86.030 states: 15 16 23 24 25 26 Every contract, combination, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is hereby declared unlawful. 562. Beginning at a time uncertain, but at least as early as the 1950s, and continuing to the present, Defendants have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine products in the United States, including the State of Washington, in willful and/or flagrant violation of RCW 19.86.030, Washington's analog to Sherman Act § l, and in violation of Article XII, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Washington . 563. As a direct and proximate result of the combination or conspiracy, Regence- Washington, Regence-Oregon, Regence-Idaho, Northwest Medical, BCWA, and MSC were injured FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I[ i i THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINCTON98=0I-3299 106-447-44o0 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 167 JOU0818'/01
Page 179: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 13 14 15 548. The consumption of tobacco products by members of Regence-Utah, and by consumers throughout the United States, was the very object of this wrongful conduct, and those products were used by Regence-Utah members precisely as intended. The injury thus inflicted on Regence-Utah was both foreseeable and intended. 549. Under the provisions_ of Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1605, Regence-Utah is entitled to bring this action and to recover two times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT 43. Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act (Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-1603(1) and (4)) [Against All Defendants] 550. Regence-Utah restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraphs 542 through 549 of this Complaint. 551. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1603 states in pertinent part: (1) It is unlawful for any person who has received any proceeds derived, whether directly or indirectly, from a pattern of unlawful activity in which the person has participated as a principal, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of that income, or the proceeds of the income ... in ... establishment or operation of, any enterprise. 21 22 23 24 25 26 (4) It is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of Subsection (1).... 552. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants was a "person" within the meaning of Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1602(3), as each of the Defendants was "capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property. " 553. Regence-Utah has been directly injured in its business and property by reason of Defendants' violations of Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-1603(1) and (4). Under the provisions of Utah FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9$IoI-3299 zo6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 165 5000818] 01
Page 180: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 496. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants was a°person" within the meaning of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-42-3(B), as each of the Defendants was "capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property." 497. BC/BS New Mexico has been directly injured in its business and property by reason of Defendants' violations of N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-42-4(A) and (D). Under the provisions of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-42-6, BC/BS New Mexico is entitled to bring this action and to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. OKLAHOMA COUNT 35. Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (Okla. Stat. tit. 15, §751 et sec.) [Against All Defendants] 498. BC/BS Oklahoma restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraph 349 of this Complaint. 499. Oklahoma's Consumer Protection Act, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 753, states, in pertinent part: A person engages in a practice which is declared to be unlawful under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act ... when, in the course of the person's business, the person: (2) Makes a false or misleading representation, knowingly or with reason to know, as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of the subject of a consumer transaction; (5) Makes a false representation, knowingly or with reason to know, as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations, or quantities of the subject of a consumer transaction.... ; FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I I ITHIRD AVENUE, SUI7E 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 982UI-3299 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 153 60M6 E7m
Page 181: ntd78c00
1 b. To cease developing, manufacturing or marketing cigarettes or other products 2 with raised, enhanced, changed, altered or manipulated levels of nicotine or nicotine impact for the 3 purpose of creating or sustaining nicotine addiction; 4 c. To cease developing, growing or importing nicotine-enriched or high-yield 5 nicotine tobacco leaf in the United States or abroad or hiring third parties to do the same; 6 d. To cease any attempt to addict any person to nicotine and to otherwise cease 7 interfering with or causing damage to Plaintiffs' programs or smoking cessation activities; 8 e. To disclose the nicotine yields of their products based on machine tests and 9 human confirmation studies for each brand; 10 11 12 f To cease targeting minors in marketing; g. To cease targeting minorities in marketing; and h. To publicly disclose and publicize all information and research relating to 13 smoking, health and addiction and to publicly state that Defendants know and have known for years 14 that cigarettes and other tobacco products are harmful and addictive, indicating what diseases and 15 illnesses are associated with Defendants' products and acknowledging that the development and 16 marketing of alternative safer or less-addictive cigarettes has been suppressed. 17 3. Requiring Defendants to pay restitution to the Plaintiff BCBS Plans of the amounts 18 paid by Plaintiffs that in fairness should be paid by Defendants. 19 4. Awarding damages and compensation in an amount to be determined but in excess of 20 $1 billion to the Plaintiff BC/BS Plans for all past and future harm suffered by PlaintiffBCBS Plans 21 as a result of Defendants' conduct as alleged herein, including but not limited to all past and future 22 health care expenditures for diseases and illnesses, including nicotine addiction, associated with 23 tobacco products. 24 5. Ordering treble damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), 15 U.S.C. § 15, and all of 25 the relevant state statutory damages claims asserted herein. 26 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC i I S I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I o I-3299 ao6-447-4400 ' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 171 50008187 01
Page 182: ntd78c00
I 2 3 6. Awarding punitive damages for Defendants' willful indifference to the safety of others in an amount to be determined pursuant to the statutory and/or common law claims to the extent permissible in each applicable jurisdiction. 7. Requiring Defendants to disgorge all unjust profits from sales of tobacco products to individual BCBS Plan members, which in equity and good conscience, Defendants should not be allowed to retain. 8. Ordering pre- and post-judgment interest and all costs, as provided by law. 9. Awarding the BCBS Plans their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 10. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just and proper. Dated: Seattle, Washington May 21, 1998 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC 15 am en M. Ha (W B No. 14 ) Michael K. Vaska (WSBA No. 15438) Christopher Kane (WSBA No. 04999) Roger D. Mellem (WSBA No. 14917) Thomas Ahearne (WSBA No. 14844) David J. Dadoun (WSBA No. 23948) 11 I 1 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, Washington 98101-3299 (206) 447-4400 David B. Howorth (WSBA No. 26249) Karen L. O'Connor (WSBA No. 27012) 101 S.W. Main Street, 15`h Floor Portland, Oregon 97204 24 25 26 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I i I THIRU AVEN UE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 ia6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 172 50008187 01
Page 183: ntd78c00
1 7 8 9 in their businesses and property (1) by reason of Defendants' conspiracy in the market for cigarettes or other nicotine tobacco products, including the suppression of a relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have existed but for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and/or (2) as a customer in the broad market for drugs, and a potential customer in the relevant submarket for safer cigarettes or other nicotine products. 564. Pursuant to RCW 19.86.090, Regence-Washington, Regence-Oregon, Regence-Idaho, Northwest Medical, BCWA, and MSC are entitled to recover three times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 565. Regence-Washington, Regence-Oregon, Regence-Idaho, Northwest Medical, BCWA, and MSC are also entitled to injunctive relief directing Defendants to cease and desist from conspiring to suppress research, development and marketing of safer cigarettes, and directing the Defendants to take such further steps as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reverse the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conspiracy. WYOMING COUNT 46. Wyoming Consumer Protection Act (Wyoming Stat. § 40-12-105) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [Against All Defendants] 566. BC/BS Wyoming restates and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 255 and paragraph 349 of this Complaint. 567. Wyoming's Consumer Protection Act, Wyoming Stat. § 40-12-105, states, in pertinent part: FOSTER PEPPER & SFIEFELMAN PLLC I I I1 THIRO AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON gSI01-j3y9 i06-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- 168 saaaa1s7 01
Page 184: ntd78c00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 15 16 17 18 25 26 Code Ann. § 76-10-1605, Regence-Utah is entitled to bring this action and to recover two times the amount of actual damages sustained, the costs of bringing this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. WASHINGTON COUNT 44. Washington Unfair Business Practices Act (RCW 19.86.020) [Against All Defendants] 554. Regence-Washington, Regence-Oregon, Regence-Idaho, Northwest Medical, BCWA, and MSC restate and incorporate herein paragraphs I through 255 and paragraph 349 of this Complaint. 555. Washington's Unfair Business Practices Act, RCW 19.86.020, states: Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. 556. The conduct described above and throughout this Complaint constitutes unfair methods of competition and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, all in the sphere of trade or commerce and impacting the public interest, in violation of RCW 19.86.020. 557. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful activity, Regence-Washington, Regence-Oregon, Regence-Idaho, Northwest Medical, BCWA, and MSC have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages and injuries to their businesses or property, including but not limited to their being required to pay and paying the costs of medical care for disease, illness, addiction and adverse health consequences caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. 558. Regence-Washington, Regence-Oregon, Regence-Idaho, Northwest Medical, BCWA, and MSC have been and continue to be injured in their businesses or property by Defendants' FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC I I I I THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IOi-3299 106-447-440a FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 166 5000BIBJ01
Page 185: ntd78c00
12 13 23 24 25 26 (collectively, the "Public Relations Enterprise") within the meaning of Utah Code Ann. § 76-10- 1602. 546. Defendants' violations of Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-1603(3) and (4) have proxi- mately caused direct injury to the business and property of Regence-Utah because it has been required to incur significant costs and expenses attributable to tobacco-related diseases. Regence- Utah has been unable to participate in a health care market where there would have been alternative safer or less addictive cigarettes or other nicotine products that would have reduced costs and expenses attributable to tobacco-related diseases, or to advise, suggest, promote, subsidize or require its members to choose to use effective alternative products, such as safer or less addictive cigarettes or other nicotine products. Regence-Utah was unable to reduce the costs of tobacco-related diseases of its members because it detrimentally relied on the false and fraudulent statements and information disseminated through an enterprise conducted by the Tobacco Companies and Hill and Knowlton through a pattern of racketeering activity. In the absence of the Defendants' violations of Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-1603(3) and (4) these costs and expenses would have been substantially reduced. 547. This injury is not a form of compensation for personal injuries suffered by smokers, and it is not a derivative injury of the harm caused to smokers. It is separate economic injury directly to the business and property of Regence-Utah, and is wholly distinct from the harms suffered by individuals. Regence-Utah suffered economic injury from these violations of Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-1603(3) and (4) because it was obligated to pay for substantially all of the health care costs of its members. No other person has standing to bring an action for the recovery of damages for this direct injury caused by these actions. -A.I 00 ~ FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC W I I I I I THIRD AYENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, wASHINGTON 98IDI-3299 V 2o6-447-4400 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 164 eoaosia 01

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: