Enforcement trends. As the litigation list shows, a few states in particular, such as California and Arizona, have been especially vigilant at litigating violations. In fact, California has likely devoted the most resources to enforce the public health provisions of the MSA, with the most attorneys allocated to litigating tobacco 58 See Lieblich 2002, supra note 25. 59 See Provisions in the Enforcement Committee Summaries – Summary 1, xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/upload/NAAGSummary1.pdf. 60 Id. See also MSA III(c)(3)(E)(ii), supra note 1. 61 See Provisions in the Enforcement Committee Summaries - Summary 1, supra note 57. 62 Id. 63 Id. See also Lieblich 2002, supra note 25. 64 See Lieblich 2002, supra note 25. 65 Id. violations than any other state.66 Although part of California’s significant effort is largely correlated to the size of the state and the state’s Attorney General office, some small states, such as Arizona, Washington, and Maine have played disproportionately large roles in comparison to certain larger states, which have been surprisingly inactive.67 States have, however, pooled their resources for important cases. For example, lawyers from the Attorney General’s offices of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and NAAG were qualified pro hac vice for the California magazine advertisement case.68 Enforcement, however, is not measured by lawsuits; that is a last resort.69 As NAAG’s Enforcement Committee efforts show, many disputes have been resolved outside the courts.70 Because most of these suits have so far been adjudicated only on a preliminary level, many questions remain, both on appeal and otherwise. For example, NAAG is supposed to resolve inconsistent rulings on MSA provisions, but it is largely unclear how the Enforcement Committee will go about doing so. In addition, how PMs will actually behave in response to these initial rulings is not apparent. Although Xxxxxxxx’ loss in California on the issue of advertisements targeting youth in national magazines is technically confined to that state, the nature of the subject matter will have nationwide implications as a matter of course; it would not be practical for a magazine with national circulation to run different advertisements in different states. However, a ruling against Xxxxxxxx on the issue of matchbooks in Ohio, for example, could arguably be limited to that state and would not change Xxxxxxxx’ marketing practices elsewhere. Another consideration that implies that suits brought by individual state...
