A federal appeals court expressed skepticism Tuesday over a 2006 ruling by a U.S. District Judge that found cigarette makers liable for deceptive marketing, the Associated Press reported Oct. 14.

Judge Gladys Kessler's ruling would ban tobacco companies from labeling cigarettes as "low tar," "light," "ultra light," or "mild," and force companies to publish "corrective statements" regarding the adverse health effects and addictiveness of smoking and nicotine in newspapers and on their websites.

However, the appeals court sharply questioned the evidence classifying the tobacco industry's marketing tactics as a conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The court zeroed in on the question of whether the tobacco industry could be held liable even though they based their claims about "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes on tests established by the Federal Trade Commission. "They are basically making factually correct statements," said Chief Judge David B. Sentelle of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Tobacco firms are hopeful that the court will overturn Kessler's ruling. Philip Morris attorney Miguel Estrada said that despite possible mixed messages from the past regarding cigarette safety, it was never proven that tobacco companies had conspired to commit fraud to sustain profits.

However, Justice Department attorney Mark Stern argued that despite research proving their products were addictive, top tobacco executives marketed products by suggesting otherwise. "Our point is, the top guys knew," he said.

The government and health groups like the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids are in favor of upholding the ruling, with the hope of having fines levied against the industry to pay for a smoking-cessation program. The decision to uphold the ruling could also be the source of new lawsuits by smokers and ex-smokers claiming they were tricked by deceptive marketing.