Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement California

Some anti-tobacconists, such as William Godshall, have criticized the MSA as too lenient towards the big tobacco companies. In a speech to the National Tobacco Control Conference, Godshall said that „with unprecedented future legal protection granted by state A.G.S. for money, it appears that the tobacco industry has emerged even more powerful from state complaints.“ [47] Revenues from domestic sales of tobacco products increased once the AASM was reached and profits from this source also increased. Although total domestic consumption of cigarettes declined,22 increases in cigarette prices more than offset these declines. These price increases have reduced the market share of OPMs, as price-sensitive smokers have switched to cheaper discount brands. Price increases have reduced total consumption but have also stimulated demand for these brands.23,24 OPMs have therefore lost market share in PMS and NPMs, which mainly market discount brands. This shift is plausible given the significant increase in the price of cigarettes. Estimates of demand elasticity in the literature25 cover the sector as a whole. The elasticities of demand for some firms are expected to be much higher than the sectoral elasticity of demand.

For this reason, the long-term effect of the AMM over a decade or more may be less favourable to firms than the effect of the first four years after the AMM. In the Smokeless Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, concluded at the same time as the Master Settlement Agreement, the market leader in tobacco-free tobacco (United States Tobacco Company, now known as U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company) with the jurisdictions that signed the MSA, as well as Minnesota and Mississippi. In this context, the model trust law requires an NPM that sells cigarettes in [*1122] to do one thing out of two to a given state: 1) join the MSA and agree to „become a participating producer (as defined in Section II (dd) of the [MSA] and, in general, to fulfill its financial obligations under the [MSA]“, or (2) make similar annual payments to a crown trust account, the resources of which can only be used to pay for a judgment or transaction on a claim against the NPM. (After 25 years, the remaining amount in the trust account is refunded to the NPM.) [27] [28] Annual fiduciary payments of an NPM in a given state are calculated by multiplying an amount per cigarette set by the state legislature and set by law by the number of cigarettes sold by the NPM in that state in the year for which the payment is made. [29] The parties agree that this quantity per cigarette corresponds approximately to the amount per cigarette required for the MSA of PMOs and PMS for sales that are not exempt. To the extent that they differ, OPMs pay slightly more than NPMs who pay a little more than NPMs.[30] As an incentive to adhere to the master settlement agreement, the agreement provides that, if an SPM has joined the master settlement agreement within ninety days from the date of execution of the Master Settlement Agreement, SPM is exempt from annual payment to Settlement States („Exempt PMS“). unless the SPM increases its share of the national cigarette market beyond its „execution date“. 1998 market share, i.e. more than 125% of the market share of this 1997 SPM.

. . .