A group of smokers (Respondents) brought suit against a tobacco producer Altria, alleging that they were misled by the Altria and other cigarette producers’ (Petitioners) ads and labels on its cigarettes touting "light" and "low-tar." By covering filter ventilation holes with their lips or fingers, taking larger or more frequent puffs, and holding the smoke in their lungs for a longer period of time, smokers of "light" cigarettes unknowingly inhale as much tar and nicotine as do smokers of regular cigarettes. "Light" cigarettes are in fact more harmful because the increased ventilation that results from their unique design features produces smoke that is more mutagenic per milligram of tar than the smoke of regular cigarettes. The smokers argued that the tobacco companies violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA) by fraudulently concealing that information and by affirmatively representing, through the use of "light' and "lowered tar and nicotine" descriptors, that their cigarettes would pose fewer health risks. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of the tobacco companies on the ground that the state-law claim is preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. The Court of Appeals reversed that judgment, and the U. S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review its holding that the Labeling Act neither expressly nor impliedly preempts state law.
What should the court decide and why?