StockersRock
Nitro Member
I believe the California ruling basically said that the agreement meant that tobacco products could not sponsor a series or a competitor in a series where any competitor was under the age of 18. More "Big Brother" stuff.
The difference in the California ruling is that the land of fruits and nuts decided that not only could tobacco companies not sponsor a driver under 18, they could not sponsor any team in a series where competitors were under 18 (or whatever the equivalent legalese might be).
The really stupid part about the ruling is that it does nothing to stop the tobacco companies from using sponsorships to promote their products to an audience of under-18 people. So this ruling keeps under 18 drivers off the track, but still allows the tobacco companies to promote themselves to under-18 year old members of the audience.
So in short, the California ruling does nothing to address the original intent of the agreement, which was to stop tobacco companies from promoting to minors.
Jim