WASHINGTON, USA – A federal appeals court yesterday agreed with the major elements of a 2006 landmark ruling that found the nation’s top tobacco companies guilty of racketeering and fraud for deceiving the public about the dangers of smoking.

The US Court of Appeals in Washington upheld requirements that manufacturers change the way they market cigarettes. The requirements, which have been on hold pending appeal, would ban labels such as “low tar”, “light”, “ultra light” or “mild”, since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them.

It also says the companies must publish “corrective statements” in newspapers and on their Websites on the adverse health effects and addictiveness of smoking and nicotine.

Throughout the 10 years the case has been litigated, tobacco companies have denied committing fraud in the past and said changes in how cigarettes are sold now make it impossible for them to act fraudulently in the future. The companies have argued the ban on labels like “light” would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Philip Morris USA and its parent company, Altria Group Inc, said they will appeal to the Supreme Court.

“The court’s conclusions are not supported by the law or the evidence presented at trial, and we believe the exceptional importance of these issues justifies further review,” Altria attorney Murray Garnick said in a statement.

The government filed the civil case under a 1970 racketeering law commonly known as RICO, used primarily to prosecute mobsters in cases in which there has been a group effort to commit fraud.

The suit was first filed in 1999 during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration pursued it after receiving early criticism for openly discussing the case’s perceived weaknesses and attempting unsuccessfully to settle it.

The nine-month bench trial included live and written testimony from 246 witnesses and almost 14,000 exhibits in evidence. US District Judge, Gladys Kessler, heard accusations that the companies established a “gentleman’s agreement” in which they agreed not to compete over whose products were the least hazardous to smokers. That was to ensure they didn’t have to publicly address the harm caused by smoking, government lawyers said. Tobacco lawyers denied the contention.