The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by a California smoker, the Associated Press reports. 

The smoker had alleged that the tobacco settlement between 46 states and the four major cigarette companies was anticompetitive and violated antitrust laws.
Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard agreed in November 1998 to pay the states more than USD 200 billion over 25 years as part of the settlement.
In June 2004, Steve Sanders sued the four companies and the state of California, arguing that the terms of the agreement effectively penalized tobacco companies if they gained market share. Tobacco companies would have to make larger payments to the states if they cut prices and increased their sales relative to rivals, Sanders said in court filings.
As a result, the cigarette companies were able to raise their prices in tandem to pay for the settlement, Sanders said, by USD 12.20 per carton in the first four years of the agreement. That allowed them to reap USD 20 billion in profits annually, more than double the amount they were required to pay under the settlement, he said.
The four tobacco companies and the state of California responded that the settlement agreement and the state laws implementing it are exempt from antitrust law, as are most actions by states.
They also disputed Sanders' argument that the settlement discourages cigarette makers from gaining market share. California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown, said in court filings that tobacco companies that didn't participate in the settlement increased their market share five years afterward, from .5 percent to 8.2 percent, while the four leaders saw their share drop from 96.5 percent to 84.5 percent. (pi)