Liability for Tobacco (& other)advertizing

[wmcot]

I hate to bring up tobacco adverts again, but seeing Ferraris in Bahrain with Marlboro blurred out made me think. If a team is sponsored by a pharmaceutical product (like NiQuitin, and possibly others in the future), and that drug is later shown to have adverse effects (birth defects, cancer, etc.) will the team share in any responsibility for advertising the product?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-tobacco advocate, but will the same problems occur if another sponsor's product has severe effects? Could a family member of someone who was killed by a drunk driver who had been drinking Johnnie Walker or Finlandia sue the F1 team for promoting drinking and driving?

Just something to think about...do we have anyone with a legal background who could shed some light on this?

[janneppi]

I doubt such a lawsuit would work. If it did, it would have been done decades ago against newspapers or tv networks and cars would now have disclaimers on them.

[SGWilko]

Why not continue to allow fag branding, but ensure the 'Smoking Kills' wording is bigger than the logo.

Simple.

[Somebody]

Why not continue to allow fag branding, but ensure the 'Smoking Kills' wording is bigger than the logo.

Simple.

And how many languages would that be in?

[Rippers]

And how many languages would that be in?

lol

[SGWilko]

And how many languages would that be in?

Well, when running in spain, in spanish, France, french, England...........

[Somebody]

Well, when running in spain, in spanish, France, french, England...........
In other words, negating the message for all non-spanish speakers when running in Spain, all non-french speakers when running in France, etc, when the majority of F1 viewers don't speak any specific language you care to name. While the invariant logo/name remains intact.

[SGWilko]

In other words, negating the message for all non-spanish speakers when running in Spain, all non-french speakers when running in France, etc, when the majority of F1 viewers don't speak any specific language you care to name. While the invariant logo/name remains intact.

As F1 becomes more 'global' so more countries will have GP's, and so more languages are covered.

[Erki]

My proposal: A team should pull a Honda and put a large texture of a smoker's lung on their car as a livery.

[Gannex]

I hate to bring up tobacco adverts again, but seeing Ferraris in Bahrain with Marlboro blurred out made me think. If a team is sponsored by a pharmaceutical product . . . and that drug is later shown to have adverse effects . . . will the team share in any responsibility for advertising the product?
No. Under the circumstances you describe, the team is under no risk at all.

The reason Ferraris in Bahrain had Marlboro blurred out was this; it is legal in Bahrain for racing cars to advertise tobacco, but it is not legal, in some European countries, for photos or videos of cars advertising tobacco to be shown. So if Ferrari had sported their full Marlboro livery in Bahrain, there was a risk that a newspaper in France, or a TV broadcast in the Netherlands which showed the handsomely turned out Ferrari might themselves be at risk. The only way, therefore, that Ferrari can get worldwide coverage for their cars, is if they eliminate the tobacco advertising from them, even in places where such advertising is legal.

[Gannex]

Correction; the Ferraris, I've now checked and seen, did in fact have their Marlboro logos clearly displayed at Bahrain. The photo you saw, wmcot, must have been one which had been doctored to comply with the ban, in some places, against showing tobacco advertising even when the advertising in question is simply part of the picture.

[wmcot]

Correction; the Ferraris, I've now checked and seen, did in fact have their Marlboro logos clearly displayed at Bahrain. The photo you saw, wmcot, must have been one which had been doctored to comply with the ban, in some places, against showing tobacco advertising even when the advertising in question is simply part of the picture.

Right, it was on one of the F1 websites. I can't be sure which one, but most likely Pitpass or F1-Live. And I do understand the bit about blurring the logo to avoid it in print in some countries.

[Quetch]

It was F1-Live because as far as I know French media cannot display anything tobacco related. A French newspaper was penalized a couple of years ago for showing a tobacco branded F1 car.

[Erki]

How about French people watching other countries' websites where the photos are not blurred out?

Pretty ironic that last year, Citroen's WRC team was sponsored by no-one lese than... Gauloises!

[tinchote]

It was F1-Live because as far as I know French media cannot display anything tobacco related. A French newspaper was penalized a couple of years ago for showing a tobacco branded F1 car.

Hey, that's great news. If you want to deter French newspaper photographers, just show a package of cigarettes in front of you :p :

[Gannex]

Just think, tinchote: if Princess Diana had only had "Marlboro" tattooed on her forehead, she'd be alive today!! And they say cigarette advertising is deadly! Actually, it saves lives.

[Somebody]

As F1 becomes more 'global' so more countries will have GP's, and so more languages are covered.
So? The tobacco companies would be getting more than half the year free of warnings in any country. And what about countries with multiple official languages? You'd need English & French in Canada; Dutch/Flemish, French, and German in Belgium, etc; shrinking the warnings - this would reach absurd levels if you actually put warnings for all the countries watching.

It's a non-starter, admit it.

[ShiftingGears]

Driving cars too fast can also be deadly, maybe teams should put pictures of deadly car crashes on their cars instead?

[Gannex]

The anti-smoking lobby, as a publicity stunt, brought out a cigarette in the late 80's called "Cancer". The box was solid black and all that appeared on it, apart from the brand name in very bold letters, was a white cross of the type seen at Flanders fields and Arlington Cemetery. The anti-smoking activists realised, however, that their point had been somewhat overlooked when the packs became a highly priized collector's item and started changing hands for hundreds of dollars each. I remember desperately trying to acquire a pack of Cancer while working for Philip Morris in 1988. I never got one, though, to my great disappointment.

They would have made great complements to my collection. I had five packs of RJ Reynolds "smokeless" cigarettes (the only smoke they made went down your throat, so they said), and a single pack of very exclusive "fire-proof" cigarette prototypes, made by a major manufacturer, which went out if you didn't take a puff for a minute, so you didn't die by burning to death after falling asleep while smoking in bed. What I wouldn't give for a pack of Cancer though.

[harvick#1]

I think its unfair for Marlboro, Mild Seven, Lucky Strike to have to leave,

yes I know smoking kills, but tell me one thing that cannot kill you :p :

and isn't their an old saying that "we are all gonna die anyways...no one lives forever?"

so when scientists finally determine cellphones cause cancer, are cellphone companies going to be banned as well. its a freedom to smoke or not, but you shouldn't just take rights away like that.

I've seen all the smoking products from F1, Nascar, IRL and I have never once said, hey that says Marlboro on the side, I better buy it.

[ShiftingGears]

Two thumbs up to that post, harvick.

[Erki]

I wonder what are the people working in the tobacco industry like. They are after all, indirectly killing other people. Or making it more likely to put it more PC.

[wmcot]

It was F1-Live because as far as I know French media cannot display anything tobacco related. A French newspaper was penalized a couple of years ago for showing a tobacco branded F1 car.

Yes, it was F1-Live, but just a couple of days ago in their "Pic of the Day" they had one of the Ferraris sitting in the garage at Bahrain with full Marlboro branding in giant wallpaper size???

[Gannex]

I wonder what are the people working in the tobacco industry like. They are after all, indirectly killing other people. Or making it more likely to put it more PC.
I worked for a law firm whose biggest client was Philip Morris. At the time I was an ambitious trial lawyer, and if you wanted to be involved in big trials, they didn't get much bigger than the tobacco litigation of the late 80's.

There were some lawyers at our firm who would not work on Philip Morris matters on grounds of conscience. They abhorred smoking, in some cases had had relatives die of lung cancer, and generally thought the tobacco industry to be evil. I never shared their view, obviously, but I respected it.

Those I did not respect were the anti-tobacco zealots. They were our enemy in every respect. They not only sought to defeat us in court, take away our livelihoods and destroy our industry, they also tried to paint us personally as inhuman, greedy, uncaring murderers, and themselves as selfless, moral superiors. To this day, the anti-smoking activists make me want to puke.

[ioan]

I wonder what are the people working in the tobacco industry like. They are after all, indirectly killing other people. Or making it more likely to put it more PC.

Cars do kill people too, directly or through carbon emissions.
Mobile phones may cause cancer too.
Computers are bad for your eyesight.
Food contains plenty of unhealthy substances.
Coca Cola is not good for your health either, along with most of the refreshing drinks.
Should I go on?

[Mihai]

Cars do kill people too, directly or through carbon emissions.
Mobile phones may cause cancer too.
Computers are bad for your eyesight.
Food contains plenty of unhealthy substances.
Coca Cola is not good for your health either, along with most of the refreshing drinks.
Should I go on?

People and NGOs are campaigning against traffic hazards and excessive emissions from cars, there is a concern in the mobile phone industry to produce phones that are less dangerous to the brain, responsible people avoid junk food an unhealthy drinks and so on. There are government regulations in all these aspects too. Do you have a point in this? Why would it be any different about smoking and tobacco manufacturers?

I read a lot of selfish and mindless posts on the tobacco advertising-related topics on this forum. Like "I am a motor racing fan and I didn't start smoking because of tobacco liveries in the sport, so tobacco advertising in F1 isn't wrong". As much as I still have consideration for famous tobacco liveries in the past (JPS Lotus, Camel Lotus, Marlboro McLaren, Gitanes Ligier, etc), tobacco advertising is history. What you see in Bahrain and other countries where tobacco advertising is not yet banned are just ghosts from the past. So stop whining and enjoy Formula 1 !

[ioan]

So stop whining and enjoy Formula 1 !

I hope it wasn't directed at me.

Correction; the Ferraris, I've now checked and seen, did in fact have their Marlboro logos clearly displayed at Bahrain. The photo you saw, wmcot, must have been one which had been doctored to comply with the ban, in some places, against showing tobacco advertising even when the advertising in question is simply part of the picture.

Brilliant.

So now we can all live physically healthy lives but in a society that is willing to censor pictures in the belief that it is protecting us.

Is it just me, or is that exactly sort of thing our governments complain that North Korea does?

[wmcot]

So stop whining and enjoy Formula 1 !

I'm sure we'll stop whining when the season starts. I think we need something to keep our minds going and our wits sharp (some being much sharper than others) until the actual racing starts.

On a different topic, F1 has become "Big Mac Friendly" since JPM left! :)

[wmcot]

Is it just me, or is that exactly sort of thing our governments complain that North Korea does?

F1 is developing nuclear weapons, too???

[leopard]

Green tea might a wise choice of Anti-oxidant to help neutralize negative effect of tobacco :)

[leopard]

Well, personally i liked very much all F1 team with tobacco color, there is no other product looks groovy like tobacco, this maybe only my personal sensation because of smoker.
OTH Considering they give great of disadvantage, i can't blame those ban tobacco to sponsor F1 and any categories of sport.

I think it will be back to each personal judging tobacco wether or not they give us advantage or disadvantage, In every package we will see warning that Cigarete is danger for health.

However tobaccos company have absorbed great deal of employee and levies were imposed by govt to them usually bigger than any other categories of industry.

[SGWilko]

there is no other product looks groovy like tobacco

The 1990 7up Jordan was quite a stunning livery.......



I read a lot of selfish and mindless posts on the tobacco advertising-related topics on this forum. Like "I am a motor racing fan and I didn't start smoking because of tobacco liveries in the sport, so tobacco advertising in F1 isn't wrong".

That is just different peoples opinions.

The problem with smoking being a persons personal choice thing is when you see these ignorant tw*t parents driving their kids in a car while smoking, that is selfish, and to allow your kiddies breath your smoke passively is just not on........

[leopard]

The 1990 7up Jordan was quite a stunning livery.......

That is just different peoples opinions.

The problem with smoking being a persons personal choice thing is when you see these ignorant tw*t parents driving their kids in a car while smoking, that is selfish, and to allow your kiddies breath your smoke passively is just not on........

Oh..forgot to mention, tobacco and sort of soft drink like 7up, coca cola, pepsi are pairing, they are cool too.

We shouldn't destroy our kids health and future, in any way smoking in the same room or while driving with kids isn't wise for their growing lungs, let them being passive smoker more fatally an error than its effect to yourself.

Smoking isn't good education for kids, therefore if we can't eliminate yet this bad habbit we have to know when and where we can light the cigarette a fire, better you go to the porch :s mokin:

[pitlanenews]

I hate to bring up tobacco adverts again, but seeing Ferraris in Bahrain with Marlboro blurred out made me think. If a team is sponsored by a pharmaceutical product (like NiQuitin, and possibly others in the future), and that drug is later shown to have adverse effects (birth defects, cancer, etc.) will the team share in any responsibility for advertising the product?

Short answer: no.

The only way a case can be made retro-active is if the company making the product knew of the side effects prior to producing, selling, marketing it. That would make the company liable for everything.

For the team to be affected, it would also need to have been aware of said side effects prior to accepting the sponsorship deal. That's unlikely at best.

If that was the case, then you'd sue the company that made the product before you'd bother with the team. After all - the team isn't going to be worth as much!

Cheers
Greg Johnson

[Tazio]

Brilliant.

So now we can all live physically healthy lives but in a society that is willing to censor pictures in the belief that it is protecting us.

Is it just me, or is that exactly sort of thing our governments complain that North Korea does?
No! I will throw in with your camp on this one.
I'm not sure which country's government you are referring to.
The US (my) gov. complains about what countries they consider hostile allegedly are doing.
Then speak of it as though it is a forgone conclusion!
By the time the press gets finished with it.
Well, let’s just say I take it with a grain of salt!
I don't think the US gov. censors pictures of cigarrette logo's on web pages yet!

[Tazio]

No! I will throw in with your camp on this one.
I'm not sure which country's government you are referring to.
The US (my) gov. complains about what countries they consider hostile allegedly are doing.
Then speak of it as though it is a forgone conclusion!
By the time the press gets finished with it.
Well, let’s just say I take it with a grain of salt!
I don't think the US gov. censors pictures of cigarrette logo's on web pages yet!
Actually I meant to say "doctors pictures". Censoring pictures could be,not sure!

[Tazio]

A little off topic!
I ran across this in a news portal I frequent
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=172227&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=29354
They apear to be very focused in Bahrain!
Was this award created by bernie?
Does anyone have a video of this ad?

[courageous]

Just a tangent on the original point -

If a newspaper or magazine prints something libelous (sp), they can be sued - but the printers (company not individual) can also be sued!

Hypotheticaly (sp again), you may be able to follow this logic to say that if you can sue the company who commisioned an advert then you could also sue the company who printed it (be it in a magazine or on the side of a car).

[wmcot]

I'm surprised nobody has tried to sue the tobacco companies for advertising in F1. I can see a wife and her attorney claiming that her husband died of lung cancer due to the influence of his being a life-long F1 fan and being exposed to tobacco adverts since the 1970's.

No more ridiculous than the guy who sued Winnebago (motor home/RV manufacturer) for causing him injury when he set the cruise control and went in back to make a sandwich. Needless to say, the vehicle veered off the highway and demolished itself injuring the man. I think he was awarded several million dollars and a new Winnebago because the company had not specifically said in the operating manual that cruise control would not steer the vehicle for him!

[Osella]

I doubt such a lawsuit would work. If it did, it would have been done decades ago against newspapers or tv networks and cars would now have disclaimers on them.

What, like this?
http://i.a.cnn.net/nascar/.element/img/2.0/sect/drivers/cup/cbowyer00/banner_jd.gif

Which appears all over the car, team clothing, overalls and merchandise for the 07 Jack Daniels NASCAR of Richard Childress Racing/Clint Bowyer

Pace Yourself. Drink Responsibly.

[wmcot]

I've got it! One car in each team could carry the tobacco branding and the second car could be covered with the disclaimers! Park them side-by-side and the legal people would be happy.

Better yet, bring back the BAR "zipper" livery - half a car tobacco ads and half disclaimers! :)

[truefan72]

I wonder what are the people working in the tobacco industry like. They are after all, indirectly killing other people. Or making it more likely to put it more PC.

just like the gun companies, the bullet manufacturers, the weapons industry, the liquor and beverage companies, the sun tan lotion folks, the computer monitor industry, all food restaurants and pizza joints that over saturated foods with trans fats, glue companies, paint companies, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor& Gamble for all their chemical based products, soda companies with their high fructose beverages, etc, etc, etc, it will never end all these companies produce some sort of product that might cause cancer or be detrimental to your health, with the exception of the multi billion dollar weapons industry, all these companies offer products by consumers choice, yes advertising plays a role, but not in the sense of car liveries and association to a particular vehicle.

I think cigarette companies don't advertise during the telecast, don't run constant images of happy people sitting around smoking ( ala Joe Camel days) and most people simply look at the cars as some sort of fancy livery than affirmations and seductions for them to go smoke. To me it was a huge waste of money by the cigarette companies that the F1 teams were only too happy to oblige. I don't see a huge swell of Panasonics being sold, new ING accounts opened, more PETRONAS oil being consumed, Royal Bank of Scotland assets going through the roof. These livery advertising were about a companies own vanity nothing more.

I am by no means a cigarette smoker and find the practice foolhardy. But they are a convenient lynch pin for politicians. Drunk driving and Alcohol related deaths, murders, sickness far far out way cigarette smoking. But yet you would see their products branded everywhere and running highly suggestive ads on TV and primarily during sporting events. Heck, they are even being sold at the sporting events, from high school football. to the super bowl and every major sporting event. I guess their lobbying group is more influential than the cigarette consortium. .. and let's not talk about the pharmaceutical industry.

The argument holds true in general society, but in terms of motorsports, that kind of vanity advertising has a minimal impact on their bottom line.

[harvick#1]

:up:

well put