Brian cleary and rita burke led a suit against cigarette maker philip morris usa, inc., seeking class-action status for a claim of deceptive adver-tising. cleary and burke claimed that “light” cigarettes, such as marlboro lights, were advertised as safer than regular ciga-rettes, even though the health eects are the same. ey con-tended that the tobacco companies concealed the true nature of light cigarettes. philip morris correctly claimed that it was authorized by the government to advertise cigarettes, includ-ing light cigarettes. assuming that is true, should the plaintis still be able to bring a deceptive advertising claim against the tobacco company? why or why not? [cleary v. philip morris usa, inc., 683 f. supp.2d 730 (n. d.ill. 2010)] (see advertis-ing, ing, ingmarketing, and sales.