In Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., No. 5-13-0017 (Ill. App. Ct. Apr. 29, 2014), the Illinois Appellate Court reviewed a trial court order denying plaintiffs’ petition for relief from the Illinois Supreme Court’s judgment, which has reversed a $10 billion jury verdict against Philip Morris in a case alleging that its use of the terms “light” and “low tar” in advertising its cigarettes constituted fraud.  The Illinois Supreme Court had reversed based on its conclusion that the Federal Trade Commission had authorized manufacturers to use those terms through a process of “informal regulatory activity,” including consent decrees.  Within two years of the ruling becoming final, the FTC made two statements stating that it never intended to provide guidance to the cigarette industry that cigarette manufacturers could use those terms.  The first statement was in an amicus brief filed before the United States Supreme Court, and second was in a document called a rescission of guidance. Relying on these statements, plaintiffs filed a post-trial motion seeking reinstatement of the $10 billion judgment with the trial court, which denied any relief.  Plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court, which held that the Illinois Supreme Court would not have reversed the trial court judgment if it had had the subsequent FTC statements.  Accordingly, the Appellate Court ruled that the trial court had erred in denying the post-trial motion and reinstated the verdict of $10 billion against Philip Morris.