Reaffirming the presumption against preemption, the Court rejected the tobacco companies’ argument that federal law both expressly and impliedly preempts claims that they violated Maine laws that prohibit fraudulent misrepresentation by promoting and advertising Marlboro and Cambridge Lights as “light” and having “low tar” nicotine. In regard to express preemption, the Court held that the Act does not immunize tobacco companies for making allegedly fraudulent statements. The Maine Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act “says nothing about either ‘smoking’ or ‘health’” the Court said. Rather, it is merely “a general rule that creates a duty not to deceive.” Regarding implied preemption, the tobacco companies relied on FTC’s allegedly “long-standing policy” of “promoting the development and consumption of low tar cigarettes.” The Supreme Court rejected this argument without difficulty, citing the amicus brief submitted by the United States for the proposition that “the Government itself disavows any policy authorizing the use of ‘light’ and ‘low tar’ descriptors.” Altria v. Good, 129 S.Ct. 538 (2008).