Landmark Canadian class action
p2p news / p2pnet:- Canada`s Supreme Court has just given the green light to British Columbia to sue the Canadian branches of Big Tobacco for lost health care costs for every smoker in the province.
Now, a class action seeks $10,000 in damages for each smoker in Quebec, half for punitive damages and the other half for moral damages, for a total of $17.8 billion.
And on top of that, a separate Quebec class-action on behalf of people who say they got cancer from smoking is expected to proceed against the same tobacco companies, says the Globe and Mail.
Imagine: a series class action lawsuits on behalf of every person, everywhere, who`s received a subpoena from one of the sue `em all organizations such as the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and BPI (British Phonographic Industry) owned by EMU, Warner, Universal and Sony BMG.
Frivolous?
Just like the phony lawsuits Big Music is bringing against file sharers. None of them has yet seen the light of day in court and if the Big Four have their way, none of them ever will.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Globe and Mail – Quebec smokers seek $17.8-billion in lawsuit, October 1, 2005
phony lawsuits – 757 new RIAA victims, September 30, 2005
October 1st, 2005 at 7:44 pm
So now Mr. Marlboro is responsible for the choices that people make in regards to cigarettes! This is a bullshit ruling.
“The lawsuit seeks $10,000 in damages for each smoker, half for punitive damages and the other half for moral damages.”
MORAL FUCKING DAMAGES, people.
October 1st, 2005 at 8:18 pm
addicts dont make choices
October 2nd, 2005 at 2:31 am
Isnt the high taxes suppose to cover the medical costs or does that go into general revenue. They should sue Labatts for damage to livers and sue the candy companies for giving kids cavaties. And sue the oil and gas companies for making our cars pollute the envirnment which in turn get us sick…………….
October 2nd, 2005 at 5:59 pm
ah give me a break they do…
just the wrong ones.
Help is available.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:41 am
Those who defend the “right” of a company to sell something that has no economic benefit to anyone save the company that sells the poison are not only illogically challenged, but also ignorant of any prevailing business ethics or business economics. The 1st comment shows an ignorance that is sad & more likely from someone who believes in market fundamentalism, the belief that the free market system needs no intervention & is self-correcting. All fundamentalism is dangerous.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:43 am
That’s a stupid stretch. Go take a philosphy course moron.
October 12th, 2005 at 10:57 pm
Actually, he’s right on target. Get a clue, retard.