Some pre-MSA strategies, such as brand sponsorships, have been severely limited or eliminated by the agreement. Advertising Money, 37-44 Youth exposure to cigarette advertising in magazines has been used for promotion and promotion in retail stores.37-44 Even with MSA restrictions, youth exposure to cigarette advertising in magazines remains a topic.42 Revenues from domestic sales of tobacco products increased after the arrival of the MSA and profits from this source increased. Although total domestic cigarette consumption decreased (22), cigarette prices were more than offset. These price increases have reduced the market share of OPMs, as price-sensitive smokers have switched to cheaper brands. Price increases have reduced total consumption, but they have also stimulated demand for these brands.23,24 OPMs have lost market share in PMS and NPM, which primarily markets discount brands. Given the considerable increase in the price of cigarettes, this postponement is plausible. The elasticity of demand estimates in the literature25 is for the industry as a whole. The elasticity of demand for some companies is expected to be much higher than the elasticity of industry demand. For this reason, the long-term effect of MSA over a decade or more may be less business-friendly than in the first four years post-MSA. This legal situation was radically changed in the 1990s, notably through a coordinated loose alliance of trial lawyers and attorneys general. In order to avoid obstacles to the success of litigation on behalf of victims, they put forward a new legal argument on behalf of states where people with smoke lived. Faced with the rapidly rising cost of smoking-related diseases, many people have received state-funded health care through Medicaid.

State taxpayers had not chosen to smoke, but were forced to bear these enormous costs. As a result, states would sue the tobacco industry for recovering the cost of Medicaid for smoking-related diseases. This remedy proposed by the Congress (1997 National Settlement Proposal (NSP), also known as the “June 20, 1997 proposal”) for the cigarette tobacco problem, resembled the subsequent multistate settlement agreement (MSA), but with significant differences. For example, the congressional proposal would have provided for one-third of all means to combat teen smoking, but these restrictions are not included in the MSA. [11] In addition, Congress` proposal would have imposed oversight by the Food and Drug Administration and introduced restrictions on advertising at the federal level. It also would have granted immunity from prosecution by the state; Punitive damages eliminated in individual remedies; and prohibited the use of class actions or other jons or aggregation devices without the defendant`s consent, in order to ensure that only individual actions could be brought. [12] The congressional proposal called for payments to the states to the tune of $368.5 billion over a 25-year period. [13] On the other hand, assuming that the majors would retain their market share, the MSA offers base payments of approximately $200 billion over a 25-year period. [14] This basic payment is subject to a particularly controversial practice, where cigarettes are placed without products and are used in films that often have a high proportion of young viewers.