328 



85 



Similarly, tht courts have consistently applied a broad interpretative 

 standard In determining If labeling and advertisements are false and/or 

 misleading. In Fairfax , supra , 113 F. Supp. 336, 1n discussing how 

 consumers might be misled, the court employed such words as "insinuations" 

 or "Indirectness" "suggestive" or "dubious representation" from which the 

 "untutored mind would infer extraordinary ameliorative results." 



In U.S. V Articles of Drug Etc.. 263 F Supp. 212 (1967), the court stated 

 that "misleading" as used within the Act should be determined by the 

 effect "the material [label and labeling] will have on the prospective 

 purchasers to whom the claims are addressed. It would defeat the obvious 

 Intentions of the Act to hold such persons to special knowledge or 

 ability. Nor should the court assume that the buying public win exercise 

 great selectivity and caution In what they choose to believe of what they 

 hear or read ... The reaction of the average person Is thus made the test. 

 But allowance has also to be made for the susceptibility to the publicity 

 of the groups or types of people at whom it Is peculiarly aimed." U.S. v 

 Articles of Drugs Etc., 263 F Supp. 212, 215, (1967). And In U.S. v 

 Article ... Sudden Change . 409 F 2d 734, 740, (2d Cir, 1969) the Court 

 concluded thtt "the purposes of the Act will best be effected by 

 postulating « consuming public which includes the ignorant, the 

 unthinking, and the credulous." 



As has been clearly documented In the Statement of Factual Grounds the 

 tobacco Industry has, in a clear and calculated manner for the past twenty 

 plus years, been reaping economic benefits as a result of Increased sales 



