WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court today handed a surprising defeat to tobacco companies counting on it to put an end to lawsuits alleging deceptive marketing of "light" cigarettes.

In a 5-4 split won by the court's liberals, it ruled that smokers may use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for the way they promote "light" and "low tar" brands. The case originated with smokers in Maine

The decision was at odds with recent anti-consumer rulings that limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power.

Altria Group Inc. argued on behalf of its Philip Morris USA subsidiary that the lawsuits are barred by the federal cigarette labeling law, which forbids states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health.

Justice John Paul Stevens, however, said in his majority opinion that the labeling law does not shield the companies from state laws against deceptive practices.

The decision forces tobacco companies to defend dozens of suits filed by smokers in Maine and across the country.

People suing the cigarette makers still must prove that the use of "light" and "lowered tar" actually violate the state anti-fraud laws, but those lawsuits may go forward, Stevens said.

Three Maine residents sued Altria and Philip Morris under the state's law against unfair marketing practices. The class-action claim represents all smokers of Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights cigarettes, both made by Philip Morris.

A federal district court threw out the lawsuit, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it could go forward.
The lawsuit argues that the company knew for decades that smokers of light cigarettes compensate for the lower levels of tar and nicotine by taking longer puffs and compensating in other ways.

David Frederick, who represented the Maine residents at the high court, said: "Had the court gone the other way, it would have been open season for the tobacco companies to continue to perpetrate fraud on the tobacco-consuming public."