Case Problem:
Tobacco companies often sell tobacco products labeled as light or ultra light. Labeling cigarettes as light and ultra light insinuates that the product contains lower amounts of tar and nicotine and that the consumer using the product will ingest lower amounts of nicotine and tar. However, three smokers from Maine argued that documents within the tobacco industry raised uncertainty about whether such products actually contained lower amounts of the harmful ingredients. Furthermore, the smokers of such products tended to take longer drags from the cigarettes, taking in more smoke. Thus, the light and ultra-light consumers were not ingesting less tar and nicotine than smokers using regular cigarettes. The three smokers determined that the Federal Trade Commission did not stop such deceptive advertising, and they sued the cigarette manufacturer, Philip Morris, and the Altria Group. The case moved beyond a federal appeals court and was ultimately brought before the Supreme Court. Did the Supreme Court allow the lawsuits to go forward on grounds of deceptive advertising? [ Altria Group Inc. v. Good., 555 S. Ct. 1291 (2008).]. Brenda Laramore receives federal assistance pursuant to Section Eight of the United States Housing Act. “Section [Eight] is a federal program designed to assist the elderly, low income, and disabled pay rent for privately owned housing.” The assistance generally comes in the form of a voucher the recipient can use to pay a portion of his or her rent. On October 21, 2002, Laramore telephoned Ritchie, the company responsible for managing the apartment in question, to request an application for a lease. The woman who took the call initially told Laramore the apartment was available to rent. After Laramore informed her she intended to use a Section 8 voucher to pay a portion of the rent, however, the woman told Laramore the apartment was not available to persons using Section 8 vouchers. On February 21, 2003, Laramore fi led suit claiming that Ritchie violated ECOA by denying her a rental application because she receives public assistance. Ritchie moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that a rental application is not a credit transaction under ECOA. The district court agreed with Ritchie and dismissed the suit. Laramore appealed. Did Ritchie violate ECOA? Should ECOA apply to rental applications? [ Laramore v. Ritchie Realty Mgmt. Co., 397 F.3d 544 (2005).]
Your answer must be, typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.