In the 2001 case of Sao Paulo State of the Federative Republic of Brazil v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., et al, Sao Paulo state sued several tobacco companies for damages related to healthcare costs incurred by treating smoking-related illnesses. The Brazilian state argued that these companies had concealed information about the health risks associated with their products and targeted young people in their advertising campaigns. However, a U.S district court dismissed this claim on grounds that it was barred by principles of international comity - respect for foreign legal systems and non-interference in another country's internal affairs. The Second Circuit Court affirmed this decision stating that allowing such claims could lead to an influx of similar lawsuits from other countries seeking compensation for public health expenses, which would be better addressed through diplomatic channels rather than litigation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sao Paulo State of the Federative Republic of Brazil v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., et al, argued that the majority's decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there were sufficient contacts between the defendants and New York to establish personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute. They contended that by engaging in a conspiracy with substantial effects within New York, these foreign entities had purposefully availed themselves to litigation within this forum state. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation regarding international comity principles and suggested it would not be an undue burden on foreign states if U.S courts exercised their authority over such cases involving transnational torts committed by multinational corporations.