The Opioid Crisis or Climate Change

Societal problems can occasionally have legal solutions, and several tools exist to implement change, including litigation and regulation. However, what elements make a societal problem more suitable for litigation or regulation? This Article examines four different societal issues (tobacco use, obesity, opioid addiction, and climate change) to determine whether litigation or regulation is the more appropriate route for success. The tobacco litigation serves as a successful example, while the fast food litigation serves as an unsuccessful example. Six signs of success are derived from the tobacco litigation: a large settlement agreement, evidence of corporate wrongdoing, change in public opinion, the litigation inspiring regulations, new courtroom avenues, and the ability to aggregate claims. The Article concludes that opioid litigation will be more successful under the tobacco litigation model than climate change litigation, because opioid litigation adapts the tobacco model to end the opioid epidemic. Novel solutions include utilizing Multi-District Litigation and the first-ever “negotiation class” that allows all 30,000 American cities to participate in a global settlement agreement with Big Pharma.

The Application of Philip Morris’ Litigation Prevention Program in South Korea

This article is aimed to identify the strategies of Philip Morris (PM, before its spin-off in 2003) and its affiliates in the intervention and prevention of tobacco litigation in South Korea. We analyzed 193 documents obtained from the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents. We found that PM organized and operated the “Litigation Prevention Program (LPP)” to create legal environments making tobacco litigation difficult to initiate and legal networks with local lawyers, media, and even competitors to effectively respond to such litigations. PM developed the LPP based on its legal strategies in the United States against tobacco litigation and disseminated them all around the world including South Korea. In 1999, the first joint action against Korea Tobacco and Ginseng Corporate (KTGC, today known as KT&G), a state-owned tobacco company, began. KTGC asked PM to support their litigation, and PM provided its legal strategies, such as sources to counter the plaintiffs’ arguments, through the LPP to KTGC. In front of legal threats, tobacco companies, competitors in markets, jointly fought back the litigation in Korea. Any litigation against a single local tobacco company may confront legal networks of tobacco companies. As a result, no litigation against tobacco companies in South Korea has been able to win over tobacco companies. International legal support including the development of guidelines of Article 19 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is vital for an effective legal fight against tobacco companies around the world.