Philip Morris Tobacco Harm Concealment Lawsuit: No Marketing is Stronger Than the Truth

“Nicotine is not addictive.” This statement once made by tobacco giant Philip Morris was ultimately proven to be false in court.

Hello, readers who care about social justice and consumer rights, Today, we’ll dive into the story of the Philip Morris tobacco harm concealment lawsuit that changed the trajectory of the global tobacco industry.

This lawsuit was not just a case against a corporation. It was a moment that directly confronted decades of advertising aimed at convincing consumers while hiding the truth about a health-harming product. In this blog, we’ll explore the background, results, and aftermath of this case.

Contents

1. Beginning of the Lawsuit and Social Context 2. Concealed Harmful Evidence and Internal Documents 3. Legal Battle and Key Issues 4. Verdict and Industry-Wide Changes 5. Tobacco Advertising and Consumer Warnings 6. Reflections on Consumer Protection and Corporate Ethics

1. Beginning of the Lawsuit and Social Context

In the early 1990s, public concern across the U.S. over the link between smoking and cancer surged. At the center of it all was Philip Morris, one of the largest tobacco companies in the world (now Altria Group).

During this time, many cancer patients and their families filed lawsuits claiming “The companies deliberately hid the dangers of smoking and designed cigarettes to be addictive.” This marked the beginning of what would become one of the most symbolic consumer lawsuits in U.S. history—the tobacco harm concealment lawsuit.

2. Concealed Harmful Evidence and Internal Documents

The lawsuit uncovered hundreds of thousands of internal documents that shocked the world. These documents revealed that the company had known for decades that cigarettes caused addiction and that nicotine was highly addictive.

• “We are in the business of delivering nicotine.” – Internal memo at Philip Morris
• Intentional addiction strategy through manipulation of tar and nicotine levels
• Marketing campaign plans aimed at targeting youth

These revelations provided strong evidence that Philip Morris had deceived both the medical community and the public for decades, sparking widespread public outrage and distrust toward the entire tobacco industry.

3. Legal Battle and Key Issues

The trial lasted about four years, with both sides fiercely debating “individual choice versus corporate deception.”

Key Issue	Details
Nicotine Addictiveness	Tobacco companies long denied nicotine addiction, but scientific studies disproved this claim
Intentional Concealment	Internal documents proved the company knowingly hid the harmful effects while continuing advertising
Consumer Responsibility	Debate between personal choice and the imbalance of information presented by corporations

Ultimately, the court sided with consumers, emphasizing the intentional deception and concealment by the corporation.

4. Verdict and Industry-Wide Changes

In 1998, Philip Morris and three other major U.S. tobacco companies reached a landmark settlement with 46 U.S. state governments, agreeing to pay approximately $206 billion over 25 years. This agreement is known as the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA).

Settlement Terms	Details
Financial Compensation	$206 billion total, paid over 25 years
Advertising Restrictions	Ban on TV, radio, and youth-targeted ads
Document Disclosure	Required to release 40 million pages of internal documents online

This settlement was not just about monetary compensation—it forced structural changes across the tobacco industry, marking a historic turning point.

5. Tobacco Advertising and Consumer Warnings

After the MSA, tobacco advertising became strictly regulated, shifting toward providing clear information about product risks to consumers.

• Mandatory warning labels on cigarette packs (e.g., “Smoking causes lung cancer”)
• Ban on youth-targeted image-based advertising
• Expansion of public smoking bans nationwide

What was once considered a symbol of ‘freedom’ is now recognized as a product that threatens health and life, completely transforming tobacco advertising strategies and brand images.

6. Reflections on Consumer Protection and Corporate Ethics

The Philip Morris concealment case was not just about the tobacco industry, but a powerful example asking how honest a corporation should be with its consumers.

1. Corporate marketing must go beyond persuasion—it must deliver responsible, factual information.
2. Governments and society must have systems in place to respond to corporate concealment.
3. Consumers must be given the right to know before the right to choose.

This lesson remains valid today amid ongoing debates about e-cigarettes, flavored tobacco, and the reliability of marketing claims. We must continue to uphold the standard of “honest business.”

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q When did the Philip Morris lawsuit begin?

It began in the early 1990s when smokers and families across the U.S. filed lawsuits for concealing the harms of tobacco.

Q What kind of evidence was concealed?

Internal documents revealed facts about nicotine addiction, manipulation of harmful substances, and youth-targeted marketing plans.

Q What was the final outcome?

In 1998, four tobacco companies including Philip Morris agreed to a $206 billion MSA with 46 U.S. states and accepted strict marketing restrictions.

Q How did tobacco advertising change after the lawsuit?

TV and radio ads were banned, youth-targeted marketing was restricted, and graphic warning labels on cigarette packs became mandatory.

Q Are tobacco companies still avoiding responsibility?

Some companies still attempt to limit liability, but court precedents and released documents have increased accountability and ethical expectations.

Q Are e-cigarettes subject to similar regulations?

In many countries like the U.S. and EU, e-cigarettes are regulated as nicotine products with restrictions on advertising, labeling, and target demographics.

In Conclusion: Hidden Truths Always Surface

The Philip Morris harm concealment lawsuit was not just about one company’s wrongdoing— It was a historic case that questioned why truth matters between corporations and consumers.

For decades, advertisements claimed “smoking isn’t harmful,” leading many to lose their health. But eventually, the truth emerged, triggering sweeping changes across the industry.

This case still offers valuable lessons in today’s debates around e-cigarettes, health supplements, and the trustworthiness of marketing. Consumers have the right to know, and corporations do not have the right to hide.

Boeing 737 MAX Crash Lawsuit: A Tragedy Born of Technology—Who Is Responsible?

“Two crashes, 346 lives lost, and one system.” Let’s uncover the truth behind the Boeing 737 MAX disasters that shook the global aviation industry.

Hello, readers who care deeply about aviation safety and corporate ethics, Today's story is not just about a mechanical defect—it's a case that questions corporate accountability and the value of life.

The Boeing 737 MAX was a symbol of next-generation aviation, but after two fatal crashes, flights worldwide were suspended, igniting intense legal and ethical debates. In this post, we'll break down the causes of the accidents, Boeing’s response, and the key issues in the ongoing lawsuits.

Table of Contents

1. Summary of the Two Fatal Accidents 2. Core Cause: The MCAS System 3. First Lawsuits Filed Against Boeing 4. Settlement and Compensation Updates 5. Changes in Aviation Regulation and Lessons 6. Between Technology and Life: The Burden of Ethics

1. Summary of the Two Fatal Accidents

In October 2018, Lion Air Flight 610 from Indonesia crashed, killing 189 people. Just five months later in March 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed in a similar manner, claiming another 157 lives.

Both crashes involved the Boeing 737 MAX 8 model, prompting airlines worldwide to ground the aircraft and governments to launch emergency investigations.

2. Core Cause: The MCAS System

Investigations revealed that both crashes were primarily caused by malfunctions in the aircraft's automatic stabilization system called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System).

This system automatically pushes the nose down when it detects excessive pitch-up. Due to faulty sensor data, MCAS repeatedly forced the aircraft's nose down, leaving pilots unable to control the plane.

• Pilots were not provided with adequate information about MCAS in training
• System relied on a single sensor, with no backup in case of error
• Aircraft transition training was minimal and done without simulators

Beyond technical failures, lack of transparency, skipped certification steps, and negligence by both Boeing and the FAA were also identified as serious issues.

3. First Lawsuits Filed Against Boeing

Following the crashes, families of the victims filed class-action lawsuits against Boeing in the United States, Indonesia, Ethiopia, and other countries.

Country	Main Plaintiffs	Lawsuit Claims
United States	Victims' Families	Product defects, information concealment, negligence
Ethiopia	Local Victims' Alliance	Emotional damage, Boeing’s systemic responsibility
Indonesia	Lion Air Victims' Families	Design flaws and insufficient training

These lawsuits go beyond seeking compensation—they challenge the legal accountability of the entire aviation safety system.

4. Settlement and Compensation Updates

Boeing has reached settlements with some of the victims’ families. As of 2021, the company has paid or is scheduled to pay a total of $2.4 billion in settlements and penalties.

Category	Details
Settlement Payments	Approximately $1.5 million per victim paid to families
Criminal Fines	$240 million paid in agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice
Public Interest Fund	$500 million donated for future accident prevention research

However, some families continue legal action, criticizing Boeing’s lack of sincerity and demanding criminal liability and accountability from executives.

5. Changes in Aviation Regulation and Lessons

This case exposed alleged collusion between the FAA and Boeing, leading to major reforms in aircraft certification and regulatory oversight.

• Expanded FAA authority and creation of independent oversight bodies
• Stricter pilot training requirements and mandatory simulator sessions
• Full review of airline self-certification systems

The 737 MAX was grounded for nearly 20 months following the crashes, and was only cleared to fly again after upgrades to the MCAS system, sensor redundancy, and improved pilot training.

4. Settlement and Compensation Updates

Boeing has reached settlements with some of the victims’ families. As of 2021, the company has paid or is scheduled to pay a total of $2.4 billion in settlements and penalties.

Category	Details
Settlement Payments	Approximately $1.5 million per victim paid to families
Criminal Fines	$240 million paid in agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice
Public Interest Fund	$500 million donated for future accident prevention research

However, some families continue legal action, criticizing Boeing’s lack of sincerity and demanding criminal liability and accountability from executives.

5. Changes in Aviation Regulation and Lessons

This case exposed alleged collusion between the FAA and Boeing, leading to major reforms in aircraft certification and regulatory oversight.

• Expanded FAA authority and creation of independent oversight bodies
• Stricter pilot training requirements and mandatory simulator sessions
• Full review of airline self-certification systems

The 737 MAX was grounded for nearly 20 months following the crashes, and was only cleared to fly again after upgrades to the MCAS system, sensor redundancy, and improved pilot training.

6. Ethics and Responsibility Between Technology and Life

This incident should not be seen as a mere technical error. It was a case that showed how corporate profit-first mentality, regulatory failures, and lack of transparency can endanger human lives.

1. Aviation technology is directly tied to human life, and must prioritize transparency and verification.
2. Corporate leaders must take ethical responsibility and provide clear explanations.
3. Choosing “profit over safety” brings irreversible consequences to society.

Thousands of aircraft are flying above us today, and this lesson continues to be relevant. We must not forget it.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q How many crashes involved the Boeing 737 MAX?

Two crashes occurred: Lion Air in Indonesia (2018) and Ethiopian Airlines (2019), resulting in a total of 346 deaths.

Q What was the direct cause of the crashes?

The main cause was a malfunction in the MCAS system, which relied on a single faulty sensor.

Q What compensation did Boeing provide to victims?

Families received approximately $1.5 million per victim, with total settlements and fines amounting to $2.4 billion.

Q How did aviation regulations change after the incident?

FAA gained more authority, airline self-certification was reviewed, MCAS was upgraded, and simulator training became mandatory.

Q Is the Boeing 737 MAX still in operation today?

Yes. It resumed operations in 2021 after meeting safety improvements and training requirements.

Q What does this case mean for corporate ethics?

It illustrates how prioritizing profit over safety can cost lives, and emphasizes the need for transparency, responsibility, and ethical leadership.

In Conclusion: Technology Is Not Perfect—That's Why Accountability Matters

The Boeing 737 MAX crashes were not just aviation accidents. Behind them were a complex web of corporate greed, system flaws, and regulatory negligence— ultimately costing 346 innocent lives.

We place our trust in technology and rely on its progress. But as this case clearly shows, when technology harms people, responsibility and ethics are not optional—they are essential.

In aviation, safety is life. This tragedy reminds us that companies, regulators, and consumers alike must become responsible watchdogs. Let us never forget that.

The Enron Accounting Scandal That Shook the U.S. Economy: The Collapse of Transparency

"Everything is in the numbers," the company claimed, but even the numbers were false. How did Enron shatter Wall Street's trust?

Hello! Today, let's explore the Enron accounting scandal, which remains synonymous with corporate fraud. What surprised me the most when I first studied this case was that such a massive fraud took place right under the noses of Wall Street, the government, and accounting firms. It wasn’t just a case of manipulated numbers—it was a systemic collapse that shook the entire U.S. economic system. In this post, we'll walk through Enron's rise, the structure of its accounting fraud, the whistleblower, and the costly lessons that American society learned.

Table of Contents

1. What Kind of Company Was Enron? 2. Hidden Debt, Fake Profits: The Structure of Accounting Fraud 3. Whistleblower Revelation and Domino Collapse 4. Trials, Sentencing, and Arthur Andersen’s Fall 5. Shockwaves in the U.S. Economy and Legislative Reforms 6. Lessons on Accounting Transparency and Corporate Responsibility

1. What Kind of Company Was Enron?

Founded in Houston in 1985, Enron started as a natural gas transportation company. By the mid-1990s, it had grown rapidly into an energy trading platform. The idea of "financializing the invisible energy market" was seen as highly innovative at the time.

Enron was named “Most Innovative Company” by Fortune magazine for six consecutive years, and its stock price rose above $90, giving it a market capitalization of $70 billion. But beneath the glossy surface were fabricated profits and sham deals forming the core structure.

2. Hidden Debt, Fake Profits: The Structure of Accounting Fraud

Enron’s accounting fraud was astonishingly sophisticated. They used Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) to hide debt off the balance sheet, and applied mark-to-market accounting to recognize expected future profits as current earnings.

2. Hidden Debt, Fake Profits: The Structure of Accounting Fraud

The accounting manipulation methods used by Enron were astonishingly elaborate. They utilized Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) to hide debts off the books and applied mark-to-market accounting, which recognized future expected profits as current earnings.

Fraud Method	Description
SPE (Special Purpose Entity)	Transferred losses and debts to entities effectively owned by Enron, omitting them from the parent company's financial statements
Mark-to-Market Accounting	Recognized long-term projected profits as immediate revenue upon signing a contract
Fictitious Transactions	Inflated revenue by repeating non-substantive trades between subsidiaries

Accounting firm Arthur Andersen condoned these practices, and the market accepted the fake profits as real, effectively fueling a financial bubble.

3. The Whistleblower and Domino Collapse

In the summer of 2001, Enron Vice President of Corporate Development Sherron Watkins sent a memo to the CEO. The content warned, “We are heading toward bankruptcy.” This internal report soon leaked, triggering a chain reaction: media coverage → SEC investigation → mass investor withdrawal.

• October 2001: $1 billion loss publicly disclosed
• November 2001: Allegations of massive accounting record shredding emerged
• December 2001: Enron filed for bankruptcy (the largest in U.S. history at the time)

Overnight, the stock price plunged from $90 to 60 cents, and more than 20,000 employees were laid off without severance pay, marking the peak of the tragedy.

4. Trials, Sentencing, and the Fall of Arthur Andersen

The Enron scandal led to extensive legal consequences for its current and former executives as well as its accounting firm. CEO Jeffrey Skilling and founder Kenneth Lay were indicted on multiple charges including fraud and conspiracy, and accounting firm Arthur Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice.

This case was more than just about punishing individuals—it highlighted the failure of the auditing system, conflict of interest structures, and a culture of accountability evasion.

Individual/Organization	Punishment
Jeffrey Skilling (CEO)	Sentenced to 24 years and 4 months in prison, later reduced and released in 2019
Kenneth Lay (Founder)	Died of a heart attack before sentencing after being convicted
Arthur Andersen	Convicted in 2002, lost CPA license, and laid off 85,000 employees

As a result, not only did Enron collapse, but Arthur Andersen, one of the Big Five accounting firms in the U.S., also vanished from history in an unprecedented event.

5. The Shock to the U.S. Economy and Legislative Changes

Enron's bankruptcy led to a collapse of trust across the entire U.S. stock market, significantly impacting the Dow and Nasdaq. Investors could no longer trust financial transparency, and a massive skepticism toward corporate financial statements emerged.

This incident marked not just the downfall of one company but the end of the idea of 'market self-regulation'. As a result, in 2002, the U.S. Congress enacted historic legislation.

Area of Impact	Details
Legislation	Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) enacted: Strengthened CEO and CFO accountability, ensured external audit independence
Auditing System	Established Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to monitor audit quality
Investor Protection	Executives could face criminal penalties for misstated financial statements

Enron is now remembered as a defining scandal that triggered regulatory reform in U.S. history, and alongside the Lehman Brothers collapse, remains a key reference point in corporate oversight.

Finally, let’s look at the ethical and practical lessons the Enron scandal leaves us with.

6. Lessons in Accounting Transparency and Corporate Responsibility

The Enron case was not just a legal issue—it was a problem of organizational culture and values. “Performance obsession,” “number-driven evaluations,” and “marginalization of whistleblowers” were all elements that enabled this catastrophe.

The key lessons we must take away are:

• Without transparent accounting standards, market trust cannot be sustained.
• Auditors serve the public, not their clients, and must never forget that duty.
• Whistleblowers with ethical courage must be institutionally protected.
• Long-term sustainability, not short-term profit, is the true growth strategy.

Enron is gone, but its story is still a mandatory case in Harvard MBA, CPA programs, and ethics courses. It is not just a tale of failure, but a warning that reminds us of the meaning of responsibility in modern capitalism.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q What was Enron’s main accounting fraud method?

Enron used Special Purpose Companies (SPCs) to hide debt and manipulated profits using mark-to-market accounting, falsely recognizing future projected profits as current income.

Q Why didn’t the auditing firm Arthur Andersen stop Enron?

Arthur Andersen, which served as both auditor and consultant for Enron, failed to maintain independence and even destroyed related documents, which led to its conviction and shutdown.

Q How many people lost their jobs due to the Enron collapse?

More than 20,000 employees lost their jobs without severance pay. Additionally, many had their retirement pensions invested in Enron stock, which became worthless.

Q What was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?

It was a law enacted in 2002 to prevent corporate accounting fraud. It enhanced the responsibility of CEOs and CFOs and strengthened the independence of external audits through the PCAOB.

Q Is the Enron case still used in business education today?

Yes. Enron is considered a classic case in business ethics, accounting courses, and MBA programs, serving as an example of how not to run a business.

In Conclusion: The Ethics and Warnings Enron Left Behind

Enron cannot simply be described with the phrase “accounting fraud.” It was a collapse of trust involving corporate greed, blind market faith, auditor silence, and investor ignorance. After this case, many companies emphasized accounting transparency and ethics, and investors stopped trusting just the “numbers.” What we must remember is that behind the numbers lies human intent. Sustainable management starts with acknowledging that growth without ethics is meaningless. Enron may have ended in failure, but the lessons it left behind will never disappear.

Ford Pinto Defect Cover-up, the Most Notorious Lawsuit in American Automotive History

"Saving $11 per car at the cost of hundreds of lives?" The Ford Pinto wasn't just a vehicle—it was a symbol of the clash between corporate ethics and the value of human life.

Hello. Today we’ll talk about the Ford Pinto lawsuit, one of the most striking examples in American automotive history of how a simple defect can lead to huge consequences. When I first learned about this case, I was shocked to realize it wasn’t just a mechanical flaw—it was a calculated corporate decision that cost lives. In this article, we'll explore the background of the Ford Pinto case, the fatal design flaw, the legal battle, and the impact it had on American society and corporate culture.

Contents

1. Background and Launch of the Ford Pinto 2. Structural Defect: Fatal Design of the Fuel Tank 3. Internal Documents: Choosing Cost Over Life 4. Legal Battle and Ford’s Defense Strategy 5. Impact on the Auto Industry 6. Corporate Ethics vs Profit Maximization

1. Background and Launch of the Ford Pinto

In the early 1970s, as Japanese compact cars rapidly gained market share in the U.S., Ford responded by developing a small and affordable car—the Pinto. The development goal was simple: ‘Under $2,000, within 2 years’. As a result, design and safety testing took a backseat to speed, and the Pinto, rushed to market in 1971, was plagued with quality issues from the start.

One of the most shocking issues was the rear-end collision explosions, which were more than just mechanical failures—they were structural flaws. But what made it worse was that Ford knew about these issues and pushed forward with production anyway.

2. Structural Defect: Fatal Design of the Fuel Tank

The Pinto’s biggest issue was its fuel tank being placed dangerously close to the rear bumper. Even a rear-end collision at just 30 km/h could crumple the tank, causing fuel leaks and leading to fires or explosions.

Design Element	Problem
Fuel Tank Placement	Too close to the rear end, easily damaged in collisions
Impact Protection	Lack of guard structures allowed metal to puncture the tank
Fuel Filler Neck	Detached on impact, fuel leaked easily

This defect wasn’t just an ‘inconvenience’—it was a deadly issue that led to numerous fatalities, and dozens of cases were exposed through media coverage.

3. Internal Documents: Choosing Cost Over Life

In 1977, a whistleblower released a cost-benefit analysis document from Ford, shocking the public. It showed that adding explosion prevention measures would cost $11 per vehicle, but the compensation for expected fatalities and injuries would be cheaper.

• Fuel system modification cost: $11 × 10 million vehicles = $110 million
• Estimated death/injury compensation: about $49 million
• → Ford concluded that paying compensation was cheaper than fixing the problem

This report fueled public outrage and led to a flood of lawsuits, branding Ford as a company that put profit above human lives.

4. Legal Battle and Ford’s Defense Strategy

As the Pinto accidents became a national issue, victims and families filed class action lawsuits and criminal charges against Ford. In 1978, the state of Indiana held the first criminal trial against a corporation for reckless homicide.

Ford argued that the “cost-benefit analysis was a rational management decision,” but public sentiment had already turned. The media and advocacy groups labeled Ford as a company that “reduced human lives to numbers,” and Ford suffered massive damage to its reputation and trust.

• 1978 criminal trial: Ford was acquitted
• However, hundreds of civil cases resulted in settlements and compensation
• In 1980, Ford discontinued the Pinto and issued a full recall

Though Ford escaped criminal penalties, it became a symbol of corporate ethical failure.

5. Industry-Wide Impact on the Auto Sector

The Pinto case wasn’t just a Ford issue—it forced a complete overhaul of auto industry safety standards in the U.S. The government enacted stricter safety laws, and automakers shifted focus from cost-cutting to proactive prevention.

Field of Impact	Details
Automotive Safety Laws	NHTSA regulations significantly tightened
Corporate Ethics Systems	Whistleblower systems and recall protocols strengthened
Business & Legal Education	“Pinto case” became a staple in MBA and law school ethics courses

After this, major corporations began treating “ethical risks” as real business risks, and consumers increasingly valued safety and transparency in products.

Finally, let’s reflect on the ethical dilemma this case raised: how should companies balance profit with human life?

6. Corporate Ethics vs. Profit: Drawing the Line

The Ford Pinto case isn’t just about a “defective car.” It continues to resonate because it forces us to ask: What do corporations value more—lives or dollars?

In the name of operational efficiency and cost reduction, many companies often put “expenses” before consumer safety. But the Pinto case changed the game. Today, safety and ethical standards shape brand reputation and trustworthiness.

Ethical decisions may cost more in the short term—but they impact long-term survival. A truly sustainable company must prioritize human life and public trust above cold calculations. The Pinto case delivered this lesson in the harshest way possible.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q How many people died due to the Ford Pinto?

Official records indicate at least 27 deaths, while unofficial estimates suggest over 500 fatalities caused by fuel tank explosions.

Q Why didn’t Ford fix the $11 issue?

Ford calculated that the total cost of fixing every vehicle was higher than paying compensation for predicted deaths and injuries.

Q Was Ford legally punished?

Ford was acquitted in a criminal court but paid massive settlements through civil lawsuits and initiated a full recall of the Pinto.

Q Is this case still studied in business education?

Yes. The Pinto case is a required study in MBA programs, law schools, and engineering ethics courses as a classic case of ethical failure.

Q Do car manufacturers still make similar cost-benefit calculations?

Cost-benefit analysis is still used, but today’s safety regulations and transparency standards are much stricter and better enforced.

Q Can we still see Pinto cars on the road?

They’ve virtually disappeared from public roads, though some collectors and museums still preserve them for historical display.

In Conclusion: The Painful Lesson of the Pinto Scandal

The Ford Pinto scandal is not just about a defective car — it posed a fundamental question about corporate ethics and the value of human life. What was once dismissed as an "efficient cost-saving" decision came back to haunt Ford through public outrage, legal battles, and massive loss of trust. This case asks us: “How much is a human life worth?” — a question that remains relevant today even in an age of advanced technology. True sustainable business begins not with numbers, but with people-first decisions. That is the lasting lesson the Pinto case leaves us.