FAQ

The complaint concerns two types of criminal conduct by Philip Morris, namely (i) systematic violations of the advertising ban on nicotine products; and (ii) misleading consumers about the dangers of alternative nicotine products.

The Netherlands has a ban on advertising nicotine products. This ban plays a central role in Dutch policy to combat nicotine addiction. The rationale behind this ban is that far-reaching restrictions on tobacco marketing contribute to better protection of public health. The Dutch legislature has opted for a comprehensive definition, under which all advertising for tobacco products is prohibited. Violations of this ban constitute a criminal offense.

Philip Morris has systematically violated this ban in recent years. Youth Smoking Prevention has uncovered dozens of violations, a large portion of which are included in the complaint. In recent years, Philip Morris has already received several sanctions from the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) for such violations. Nevertheless, Philip Morris continues to market its products unabated. Since these NVWA sanctions have apparently had insufficient effect, the application of criminal law is warranted.

Fraudulent practices have been part of Philip Morris’s core business for decades. When cigarettes were first introduced, their dangers were downplayed, and it was even claimed that cigarettes were good for one’s health. In the years that followed, filter cigarettes and “light” cigarettes were introduced. Philip Morris used a web of lies to claim that it was thereby pursuing harm reduction. These products were just as harmful to health. Because of this deception, these products were approved, and consumers were enticed to start smoking or continue smoking.

Philip Morris is currently employing the same strategy of providing misleading information when it comes to its so-called alternative tobacco products, including heated tobacco products marketed as “heat not burn” or IQOS. Once again, Philip Morris claims it wants to be part of the solution, but it continues to strive to create as many nicotine-addicted people as possible. In doing so, Philip Morris is once again explicitly targeting children and young adults to make them addicted—and thus customers—for life. The tobacco industry also refers to them as “replacement smokers,” because these children and young adults are meant to replace the company’s deceased consumers.

In these misleading campaigns, Philip Morris once again uses all sorts of data that has largely been compiled by the company itself. At the same time, Philip Morris withholds new and highly alarming findings from the scientific literature. This data from Philip Morris is therefore misleading, and in doing so, Philip Morris is committing criminal offenses such as forgery and fraud.

A criminal conviction does not automatically lead to a nationwide ban on the sale of tobacco products. Criminal proceedings are primarily intended to impose a penalty on someone who has committed a criminal offense. A sanction for violations of the advertising ban does, however, send a strong signal that the company must stop engaging in unauthorized advertising. A penalty for deception demonstrates that, this time, the company will not get away with systematically deceiving consumers to make them addicted to Philip Morris’s products.

The potential fine if Philip Morris is convicted could amount to up to ten percent of its annual revenue. In addition, it is possible to seek community service or prison sentences for executives and employees who played a role in committing the criminal offenses.

On the Youth Smoking Prevention website, you can make a one-time donation via IDEAL, or transfer a donation to NL 13 ABNA 0406 5598 21 in the name of Rookpreventie Jeugd. If you’d like to continue supporting us in the future, you can set up a recurring donation agreement. More information about this can be found here.

Youth Smoking Prevention already filed a complaint against certain tobacco manufacturers, including Philip Morris, in 2016. This did not lead to prosecution, because the Public Prosecutor’s Office felt that further regulation of the tobacco industry is a matter for policymakers. The new complaint aligns with this view of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. After all, this complaint is based on existing laws and regulations. Politicians have already made it clear that advertising tobacco products and misleading the public about them are not permitted, and this has been enshrined in law. The complaint is intended to urge the government to enforce these existing standards.

Yes, the Public Prosecution Service may decide not to proceed with prosecution in response to the complaint. This happens, for example, in the absence of evidence or when prosecution is not in the public interest. A directly affected party who disagrees with this decision may then file a formal complaint with the court of appeals. This “Article 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure” procedure may result in the court of appeals instructing the Public Prosecution Service to bring the case before a judge after all.

In criminal proceedings, investigative authorities have broader powers to gather evidence than citizens do in civil proceedings. In addition, a criminal conviction can result in harsher penalties, a greater deterrent effect, and a greater societal impact. In the case of Philip Morris, it became apparent that administrative fines are insufficient to compel the company to comply with the law. In cases of repeated violations, criminal law takes precedence over administrative law.

These cases involved similar misrepresentations regarding the harmfulness of the products as in the current complaint. In all cases, these companies were aware of the negative consequences of their products on public health but publicly denied this. In addition, these companies used a similar marketing campaign specifically targeting young people. The MSA is a multi-billion-dollar settlement between U.S. states to compensate for the healthcare costs of smokers and to restrict tobacco advertising. The RICO case was a federal lawsuit in which the tobacco industry was found guilty of years of organized deception of the public regarding the health risks and addictive nature of smoking.

As a global tobacco supplier, Philip Morris has the largest market share, meaning that prosecuting it would have the greatest societal impact. In addition, with products such as IQOS, Philip Morris is introducing a new form of deception under the pretext of contributing to a “smoke-free world.” A targeted complaint against Philip Morris addresses both the largest market share holder and these deceptive tactics.

If Philip Morris is convicted in a criminal case, victims or consumers will not automatically receive compensation. However, a criminal conviction does increase the likelihood of a successful claim for damages in future civil proceedings.