At the Tenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), Parties initiated efforts to revive a critical but underused provision of the WHO FCTC: Article 19 on liability—based on a finding that the tobacco industry continues to escape liability and has now moved to new forms of harm. Their initiative resulted in the re-establishment of the Expert Group on Liability whose work is being considered by the 11th Session of the FCTC COP happening this November 15-22, 2025.
The Expert Group’s report to the COP11 (EG) shows that implementation remains limited. Only a handful of Parties have fully implemented Article 19. Most see it only as litigation, which is often slow, resource-intensive, and inaccessible to many jurisdictions. Among others, the Expert Group (EG) recognized that alternative pathways are also important while emphasizing that civil and criminal actions continue to play a central role in establishing responsibility and securing meaningful remedies.
Recent discussions point to the need for clearer next steps, not just a generic recognition of the EG report and the importance of litigation, but also tools drawn from other sectors that could move Parties closer to making the tobacco industry accountable for harms caused.
A strengthened approach to Article 19 includes specific calls for Parties to consider administrative and fiscal measures. These include administrative sanctions that are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive—allowing regulators to fine, suspend, or order corrective action against companies without waiting for lengthy judicial rulings. Countries may also make use of administrative tribunals in areas such as environment, corruption, or human rights; and fiscal mechanisms, such as levies (e.g., Gambia, Chad, and Benin’s environmental tobacco taxes) or surcharges, to recover the public costs of tobacco-related disease, environmental clean-up, and enforcement, not too different from how countries enforce liability in the oil industry (International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) or among ozone producers (Montreal Protocol). This demonstrates that fiscal liability for tobacco is both practical and precedented, though not yet coordinated globally.
In countries with limited judicial capacity, administrative and fiscal measures can be a practical starting point, but they should not limit or delay access to justice. These tools are meant to complement—not create a barrier to—civil or criminal actions, which remain significant for establishing responsibility, deterring / exposing misconduct, and denormalizing the tobacco industry. Emerging cases to recover environmental clean-up costs should also continue to be explored (e.g. Baltimore vs Philip Morris).
Given the Expert Group’s finding that implementation of Article 19 remains limited and that many Parties lack clarity on non-judicial options,* Parties can benefit from technical information on feasible administrative and fiscal approaches, which may be developed by the Convention Secretariat or the WHO. Lessons from human rights, environmental, and anti-corruption systems—where administrative enforcement is well established—could offer practical models for Parties to consider. Guidance on cost-recovery formulas would further help countries estimate and justify levies or fees based on clear evidence. Together, these could equip Parties with the tools necessary to make the tobacco industry pay.
Without additional tools, governments remain dependent on litigation alone—an approach that often favors those with deeper pockets and more time. Administrative and fiscal mechanisms can be applied immediately, giving governments additional avenues to act and ensuring that the costs of harm are borne by the producer-polluter as early as possible, rather than only after lengthy court battles where companies may have diverted resources or even filed for bankruptcy (e.g., in Canada).
Strengthening Article 19 in this way would make liability more accessible. It would enable practical cost recovery and real deterrence. Taken together—judicial, administrative, and fiscal approaches—these tools ensure a complete and coordinated strategy for holding the tobacco industry accountable.
*The EG report also invites attention to the growing relevance of administrative processes while highlighting the impactful action taken by the regulatory agencies in Colombia, India and Ukraine using consumer protection, environmental, and competition frameworks.
Authors:
Deborah Sy, Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC), Manila, Philippines. Daniel Dorado, Corporate Accountability, Quito, Ecuador. Amit Yadav, Vital Strategies, India. Raouf Alebshehy, Tobacco Control Research Group, University of Bath, UK. Sungkyu Lee, Korea Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Republic of Korea. Theodore O. Te, University of the Philippines College of Law, Quezon City, Philippines. Peter Magati, Development Hub, Nairobi, Kenya. Gustavo Sonora, Vital Strategies, Montevideo, Uruguay.