’17 Days of Revenue’: Massachusetts High Court Weighs Record $56M Punitive Damages Against Philip Morris in Tobacco Death Suit
In a case that could reshape punitive damages caps for deep-pocketed corporations, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard oral arguments on November 5, 2025, in a wrongful death lawsuit against Philip Morris USA. At the heart of the appeal: Whether a trial judge properly reduced a jury’s eye-popping $1 billion punitive award to $56 million—described by plaintiffs as “less than a full day’s revenue” for the tobacco giant, but by the company as an “irrational” windfall driven by prejudice. The phrase “17 days of revenue” has become a rallying cry, underscoring the gulf between corporate scale and individual harm in an era of trillion-dollar verdicts. As of November 9, 2025, no ruling has issued, but justices’ sympathetic tone during arguments suggests the award may stand, potentially signaling a green light for juries to hit Big Tobacco harder.
The Case: Fontaine v. Philip Morris—A Smoker’s Final Reckoning
The suit stems from the 2017 death of Barbara Fontaine, a 60-year-old Massachusetts woman who succumbed to lung cancer after 40 years of smoking Philip Morris brands like Marlboro and Parliament. Filed by her widower, Armand Fontaine, and their children in Suffolk Superior Court, the complaint accused the company of a decades-long deception campaign: Downplaying addiction risks, manipulating nicotine levels, and funding “public relations” to sow doubt about smoking’s dangers—tactics eerily echoed in the original 1998 Master Settlement Agreement.
- Trial Verdict (2024): After a seven-week trial, a Boston jury sided with the Fontaines, awarding $8 million in compensatory damages (for medical bills, lost companionship, and emotional suffering) and a staggering $1 billion in punitive damages. Jurors cited “willful and reckless” misconduct, including internal documents showing Philip Morris knew of cancer links since the 1950s but prioritized profits.
- Post-Trial Reduction: Superior Court Judge Michael D. Ricciuti upheld the compensatory award but slashed punitives to $56 million under Massachusetts’ constitutional guideposts from BMW of North America v. Gore (1996)—requiring awards to bear a “reasonable relationship” to harm, avoid arbitrariness, and reflect reprehensibility. The judge called the original $1B “grossly excessive” but affirmed the scaled-back figure as “substantial deterrence” given Philip Morris’s $60 million daily revenue.
The case revives Massachusetts’ aggressive stance on tobacco litigation: Since 1998, the state has secured over $12 billion from manufacturers, funding anti-smoking programs. This is the first major punitive award against Philip Morris in the Bay State since a 2012 $72 million verdict (later settled).
The Appeal: Philip Morris’s Bid for a Wipeout vs. Plaintiffs’ ‘Revenue Reality Check’
Philip Morris appealed directly to the SJC, seeking a full reversal and new trial. Their brief argues the $1B jury award proves “passion and prejudice” infected the entire verdict, tainting even the $8M compensatory portion. Key claims:
- Excessiveness: Punitive-to-compensatory ratio of 125:1 far exceeds the single-digit “reprehensibility” benchmark from U.S. Supreme Court precedents like State Farm v. Campbell (2003).
- Jury Bias: Inflammatory evidence, including graphic lung photos and victim testimony, “inflamed” jurors against a “villainous” defendant.
- Evidentiary Errors: The trial court wrongly admitted post-1998 conduct (e.g., menthol marketing) and rejected a “clear and convincing” evidence standard for punitives.
Plaintiffs’ counsel, led by Celen Humphries of Tennessee (pro hac vice) and local firm Edwards Wildman Palmer, fired back with a stark economic lens: “$1 billion is about 17 days of revenue for Philip Morris—less time than this trial lasted.” They emphasized the company’s $22 billion annual U.S. revenue (2024 figures), arguing smaller awards become “the cost of doing business.” Humphries told the court: “Sometimes a jury returns $100,000 in punitives, and that’s not even a traffic ticket to Philip Morris.” She urged upholding the reduced award as calibrated deterrence, noting Philip Morris’s history of 9-figure appeals (e.g., a 2023 Oregon $93M cut to $50M).
Oral Arguments: Justices Lean Skeptical of Full Reversal
During the hour-long hearing in Boston, SJC Associate Justice Gabrielle R. Wolohojian grilled Philip Morris attorney Christopher R. Dillon: “So we should overrule the compensatory damages because the punitive damages were too high?” This exchange signaled reluctance to vacate the entire verdict—a common appellate remedy in punitive cases. The seven-justice panel, including Chief Justice Kimberly S. Budd, probed resource disparities: Justice Dalila Wendlandt noted, “The critical fact is resources… Trillions doesn’t match up to their resources.” No justice voiced outright support for a new trial, and Humphries’ revenue framing drew nods.
Legal observers, like Boston University Prof. Robert Bone, predict a 5-2 affirmance by early 2026. “The SJC has upheld punitives before when tied to ongoing harm,” Bone said. If affirmed, the $56M could fund Fontaine family scholarships and anti-tobacco PSAs, per court filings.
Broader Stakes: Punitive Damages in the Corporate Crosshairs
This appeal arrives amid a national rethink of punitives, especially post-SFFA v. Harvard (2023) scrutiny on “fairness” in awards:
- Pro-Plaintiff Momentum: States like Massachusetts (no statutory cap) and Oregon have greenlit billion-dollar verdicts against pharma and tobacco firms, viewing them as “moral damages” for systemic deceit.
- Corporate Pushback: Philip Morris joins Exxon and Johnson & Johnson in SJC briefs arguing for federal-style caps (e.g., 4:1 ratios). A loss could embolden class actions over vaping and light cigarettes.
- Economic Context: With Philip Morris’s 2025 profits projected at $12 billion, the “17 days” meme has trended on X, with users quipping: “Tobacco kills for profit; courts bill for justice.”
| Aspect | Philip Morris’s View | Plaintiffs’ View |
|---|---|---|
| Award Size | “Irrational excess” (125:1 ratio) | “Deterrent necessity” (17 days’ revenue) |
| Jury Influence | Passion/prejudice taints all | Evidence-based on “reprehensibility” |
| Legal Standard | Needs “clear & convincing” proof | Preponderance suffices for fraud |
| Potential Outcome | Full reversal, new trial | Uphold $56M as “fair reduction” |
A win for the Fontaines could deter legacy polluters, but Philip Morris vows further appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. For now, Armand Fontaine, now 72, awaits closure: “This isn’t about money—it’s about accountability for what they stole from us.” Track SJC dockets for the opinion, expected by spring. In tobacco’s long shadow, justice may finally light up.