Certainly, if a tobacco company committed fraud by hiding damages from a consumer, then that consumer would be entitled to compensation for a consequent loss. We've already recognized that this case is different from people who choose to smoke despite the dangers. Prior sins of the tobacco companies do not extend that liability to new smokers.
Perhaps. I'm unwilling to commit, as I feel myself ill equipped to judge matters of legality.
ETA: What I do know is that despite legal rulings, here in the US at least tobacco companies still fought against fully compliance. So there's that to consider. Additionally, the warning on cigarette labels, as I understand it, is not the product of the tobacco companies. From the article I posted earlier, dated a mere year prior:
"The agreement was reached the day before the 50th anniversary of the surgeon general warning on tobacco and lung cancer, released Jan. 11, 1964.
The long-awaited advertising
campaign was ordered in 2006 by U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, who found tobacco companies guilty of violating civil racketeering laws and lying to the public about the dangers of smoking and their marketing to children. Kessler must approve the agreement.
That verdict was the culmination of a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice in 1999, when it sued tobacco companies under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)."