Craig Newmark makes a great point about the plaintiff's theory, as stated by Illinois Supreme Court in the Phillip-Morris low tar case, which essentially states that low tar cigarettes were "fraudulent" because people felt safer and, thus, smoked more. (See David Koppel's post at the VC for more info) ....
...[I]f the theory were widely accepted the plaintiff's bar would have more work than they could handle until the end of the world. Economists have good evidence that seatbelts change drivers' behavior a little for the worse. So should any devices--padded dashes, anti-lock brakes, airbags--that make drivers safer. "Child-proof" caps on medicines also seem to have made people less careful in storing drugs. And Kopel notes that the theory seems tailor-made to sue makers of low-calorie foods. If this theory of harm were accepted, all those companies and more--many more--would, I assume, be liable.
Recent Comments