The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week over whether tobacco companies can be sued under state law for deceptively advertising "light" cigarettes, Reuters reported Oct. 6.

Attorneys representing Philip Morris USA argued that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act bars lawsuits like the one filed by three longtime smokers in Maine, who claimed that tobacco firms used unfair and deceptive acts or practices in advertising cigarettes as "light" or having "lowered tar and nicotine."

Attorney Theodore Olson, arguing on behalf of Philip Morris, said Congress had declared one national source of regulation for advertising of cigarettes and health claims, adding that if states can set separate standards then "national advertising becomes impossible." Attorneys representing the smokers argued that the law adopted by Congress was not intended to give cigarette makers immunity to make false statements.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts noted that federal law specifically covered what companies can say about a product's safety and health status, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed concern that a ruling in favor of the tobacco companies might also bar state attorneys general from filing lawsuits.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has long allowed the use of "light" and "low tar" in advertising cigarettes, which prompted criticism from Justice Samuel Alito, who said the agency was responsible for creating the problem and had "misled everyone who has bought these cigarettes for a long time."

A ruling on the case is expected early in 2009.