How to Feed a Lawyer (and Other Irreverent Observations from the Legal Underground)

    Click on the book cover for details!

« | Main | »



The best part of the decision is that it strikes down the use of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act in cases where consumers haven't actually been injured.


Ted: The requirement of actual damage is written right into the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and is also required by previous Illinois Supreme Court decisions; today's ruling, which is actually pretty narrow, didn't change any of the elements required to prove a case under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

If you disagree, please tell me why.


Yet a Madison County judge almost bankrupted Philip Morris without any showing of actual damage. Which perhaps explains the tone of the majority opinion, as you discuss in your other post.

Aaron Z

Nice try Ted. At least two Nobel Laureates agree with the damages model in Price. Who do you have?


The Nobel laureate economists, Dr. Robert Solow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr. George Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley validated the method used to calculate the damages that should be paid to the Light cigarette consumers and attested to the amount figured for the award.


Ted: You write, "[A] Madison County judge almost bankrupted Philip Morris without any showing of actual damage." From discussions we've had on this weblog in the past, I know you are critical of some of the judges in Madison County. I note that your post at Point of Law about the Avery decision also mentions Madison County quite a bit.

For what it's worth, decisions against Philip Morris are not limited to Madison County. For example, there was a Missouri Court of Appeals decision this week upholding class certification in a case similar to the Illinois case. Here's an article about it, and here is the decision.

The Missouri court said the following about damages: "In concluding that common issues predominate, the trial court rejected the argument that the fact of damages presented a predominant individual issue and concluded that the class members could prove recoverable damages on a uniform, class-wide basis under the benefit of the bargain rule. The trial court also concluded that it was possible that plaintiff could establish through expert testimony that each pack of Lights purchased would have had greater economic value had it been 'as represented;' that is, a truly low tar and low nicotine cigarette. Defendants assert that these conclusions are erroneous because they were based on conjecture rather than upon evidence."

The Court rejected the Defendants' contentions for the reasons stated in the decision.

Of course, I don't expect you to agree with the Missouri court, just as you do not agree with the Illinois court; I just wanted to add an additional perspective.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Search Beyond the Underground