Court excludes Flintstones cigarette ad amid negligence marketing claims against Reynolds

The oral arguments held on May 12, 2025, in Massachusetts, presided over by Justices Meade, Shin, and Tan, focused on the admissibility of certain evidence in a significant trial concerning negligent marketing practices. The discussions primarily revolved around the exclusion of specific advertisements and internal documents related to cigarette marketing strategies.

The session began with a review of the testimony regarding a Flintstones commercial that featured Winston cigarettes. Counsel argued that the exclusion of this evidence was inappropriate, as it could provide insight into the marketing strategies aimed at children. However, it was noted that the judge ruled the commercial's relevance was minimal due to its original airing during prime time, targeting an adult audience, despite the presence of children in the viewership. The court emphasized the potential for prejudice and confusion among jurors, given the cartoon's context as an adult comedy.

Further discussions highlighted a 1964 internal memo from Lorillard, which referred to marketing strategies aimed at "youthful and immature groups." The judge excluded this document on the grounds of relevance, stating that the term "youthful" did not necessarily imply underage individuals. The defense maintained that the evidence was cumulative, as similar themes had already been established through other testimonies.

The court also addressed the issue of negligent distribution sampling related to the plaintiff, Mr. Pritzke. While the jury found that negligent sampling occurred, they did not establish a causal link to the cancer diagnosis, which was a critical aspect of the case. The defense argued that the testimonies excluded were not relevant to causation, as they did not pertain directly to Mr. Pritzke's situation.

As the session concluded, the justices indicated they would take the arguments under advisement, reflecting the complexity of the issues at hand. The meeting underscored the ongoing legal debates surrounding marketing practices and their implications for public health, particularly concerning vulnerable populations. The outcome of this case could have significant ramifications for how tobacco products are marketed in the future.