Category: Litigation

Reynolds Cleared in Oregon Cancer Suit

Photo: succo from Pixabay
Oregon jurors on Feb. 19 cleared R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. of responsibility for the terminal lung cancer Patricia Rickman developed after decades of smoking the company’s cigarettes, reports the Courtroom View Network.
The case, Rickman v. R.J. Reynolds, turned in part on whether tobacco industry messaging swayed Rickman’s smoking decisions. Rickman claims that Reynolds’s participation in a decades-long campaign to misrepresent the health effects of smoking ultimately caused her cancer.
Reynolds countered that Rickman smoked despite knowing the dangers of cigarettes. Representing Reynolds, attorney Steven Geise told jurors Rickman began smoking years after mandatory warnings went onto cigarette packs and continued despite widespread information concerning smoking’s dangers.
The evidence, Geise said, undercut Rickman’s contention that she did not believe smoking was dangerous until about 2015. “It stretches the bounds of reason,” Geise said, “to think that somebody could go into the 2010s and not have any idea that cigarette smoking was bad.”
The plaintiff’s attorney had requested up to $12.7 million for Rickman plus loss-of-consortium damages for her husband and a finding that punitive damages were warranted.
February 22, 2021
Court Overturns $10.6 Million Verdict Against Reynolds

Photo: succo from Pixabay
A Florida appeals court on Feb. 10 overturned a $10.6 million verdict against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in a lawsuit involving a woman’s death from lung cancer, reports WUSF News.
A three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal ordered a new trial in the Broward County lawsuit for which a jury awarded $6 million in compensatory damages and $4.6 million in punitive damages to the estate of Janice Hamilton.
R.J. Reynolds argued in its appeal that a circuit judge improperly allowed a hearsay statement that centered on a conversation between Hamilton and her son when he was a teen. That hearsay statement was used to prove a “fraudulent concealment” claim against the cigarette maker.
The seven-page ruling said, “In order for plaintiff (Hamilton’s son as representative of the estate) to prevail on his conspiracy to commit fraud by concealment claim, he was required to prove that Mrs. Hamilton detrimentally relied on an act or statement made in furtherance of RJR’s agreement to conceal or omit material information concerning the health effects or addictive nature of cigarettes. Hamilton’s statement that filtered cigarettes were safe based on what she heard from advertising, in turn, was undoubtedly the strongest evidence of reliance in this case.”
February 12, 2021
FTC Staff Urges Timely Start of Altria Trial

Photo: Paul Brady – Dreamstime.com
U.S. Federal Trade Commission staffers urged the commission to start its trial against Altria Group’s $12.8 billion investment in Juul Labs in April as scheduled, reports Law360.
The cigarette giant had requested a three-month delay from the current April 12 start, speculating that it will be safe to hold an in-person trial by mid-July. The current April trial will be virtual due to the Covid-19 crisis. The trial was previously moved from Jan. 5 to mid-April because of the pandemic. Altria and Juul said a virtual hearing would diminish their attorneys’ ability to assess the credibility of the testifying witnesses.
In a filing Thursday to the agency’s commissioners, the FTC’s trial staff said that hopes for an in-person, Covid-free proceeding by July are “highly speculative.”
“While the vaccine news is promising, the timetable for the chief administrative law judge and his staff, witnesses and counsel to receive vaccinations is highly uncertain at this time,” the staffers said. “And, while complaint counsel shares respondents’ concerns regarding the severity of the pandemic, these concerns can be remedied by proceeding with a virtual hearing.”
The FTC case alleges that that Altria shut down its own e-cigarette business to pave the way for the investment, in the process eliminating competition in violation of antitrust laws.

February 1, 2021
Capna Intellectual Sued Over Bloom Logo

Photo: Capna Intellectual
ITG Brands is suing Capna Intellectual for infringing its Kool trademark, according to Bloomberg Law.
According to ITG, the interlocking “O” letters in Capna’s Bloom cannabis e-cigarette brand logo confusingly resemble ITG’s famous Kool logo.
The suit was filed late January in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Capna reportedly applied for federal trademarks covering Bloom for e-cigarettes and oral vaporizers. ITG says it sent Capna a cease-and-desist letter in December.
The complaint says the Bloom marks are intended to capitalize on Kool’s well-known branding.
February 1, 2021
Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Sued

Photo: Michal Kalasek | Dreamstime.com
A former employee of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World claims she was fired for raising concerns about the organization’s ties to the tobacco industry, reports Bloomberg Law.
Lourdes Liz, who worked at the Foundation as social media director from February 2018 until February 2020, says she was terminated after objecting to activities “designed to increase the profits of and to do the bidding of Philip Morris International and Altria Group.”
In a lawsuit filed on Jan. 13 in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Liz maintains that the group’s close ties to the tobacco industry violate its status as an independent nonprofit organization.
The Foundation, which has received millions of dollars in funding from PMI, has met fierce opposition from health groups. Shortly after its creation in 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) said it would not interact with it, citing a fundamental conflict of interest between the tobacco industry and public health.
The Foundation is led by Derek Yach, an anti-smoking crusader who, while working at the WHO, was the primary architect of that agency’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
January 15, 2021
Lawsuit Against Juul Distributor Dismissed

Photo: Okan Caliskan from Pixabay
A federal judge in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, has dismissed investors’ lawsuit against tobacco distributor Greenlane Holdings, reports Reuters.
Investors filed a class action lawsuit, claiming Greenlane should have mentioned a pending ban on e-cigarettes before publicly offering stock in 2019.
U.S. District Judge Roy Altman dismissed the proposed class action, saying the distributor for Juul Labs had no duty to flag San Francisco’s then-pending ban on e-cigarettes to investors ahead of its initial public offering in 2019, according to Reuters. Altman called the class action “nothing more than a hammer in search of a nail.”
Altman ruled that the investors did not have a viable claim under the Securities Act of 1933 because Greenlane warned them of the risk of increased tobacco regulation in its registration statement, and the proposed e-cigarette ban was already public.
January 11, 2021
Court Clears Way for E-Cig Explosion Case

Photo: 정수 이 from Pixabay
A superior court in California has denied a request by Samsung to dismiss a lawsuit about an exploding e-cigarette lithium-ion battery.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff had purchased the Samsung batteries on the recommendation of an e-cig retailer, and used them without issue until April 14, 2018, when the Samsung battery exploded in his pocket, inflicting second- and third-degree burns on his left leg and genitalia, requiring skin-graft surgery, and leaving him with permanent scarring, discoloration and hyper-sensitivity.
According to the lawsuit, Samsung had known since at least January 2016 that individual consumers were purchasing and using Samsung batteries for use in electronic cigarettes—a use that Samsung allegedly knew would subject consumers to potential harm. Instead of taking meaningful action to limit the risk or remove its batteries from the marketplace, Samsung ignored the problem, resulting in at least 88 cases filed against Samsung for similar battery explosion issues.
Samsung filed a motion for summary judgment/adjudication attempting to dismiss the case, including a request to dismiss claims for punitive damages. The Court denied Samsung’s motion in its entirety, leaving it to the trier of fact to determine not only Samsung’s liability for the harm caused by its batteries, but Samsung’s culpability for punitive damages as well.
“Samsung has known for years that its batteries were being used in e-cigarette products,” said Greg Bentley of Bentley & More, the law firm representing the plaintiff, in a statement. “Instead of getting them off the market, Samsung has taken the greedy path putting profit over safety, evidenced by the huge uptick in sales of just this one model alone—from 14.1 million sales in 2015 to 63.7 million in 2017, and many millions more over the last three years. Enough is enough. We look forward to the jury seeing the evidence and holding Samsung accountable.”
It is believed that this is the first of its kind ruling regarding punitive damages claimed against Samsung involving injuries suffered as a result of an e-cigarette battery explosion.
January 8, 2021
South Africa to Appeal Tobacco Ban Ruling

Photo: Alexlmx – Dreamstime.com
The government of South Africa will appeal the Dec. 11 court ruling that declared the ban on the trade of tobacco products during the coronavirus lockdown was unnecessary and unconstitutional.
The government stated that the court erred in finding that a different but similar case involving the Fair Trade Independent Tobacco Association (Fita), which was dismissed on grounds that tobacco products were not essential, was not binding to it.
From March to August 2020, the government prohibited sales of tobacco products and alcohol to help stem the spread of the coronavirus. Market leader British American Tobacco South Africa (BATSA) and smaller companies united in the Fita challenged the ban, arguing that a short-term ban on a product whose health risks become evident only in the long run makes no sense.
They also questioned the rationale of the argument around cigarette sharing. Tobacco shortages and high prices of black-market cigarettes would only increase the likelihood of smokers sharing their “stompies,” the tobacco companies said.
The government lifted the ban before the matter had been heard in court, but BATSA decided to proceed with the court action to prevent the ban from being reintroduced at a later stage of the pandemic.
In its ruling, the Western Cape High Court judges who presided over the case said Regulation 45, which the government relied upon for the ban, “cannot and does not withstand constitutional scrutiny.”
The Fita expressed disappointment with the government’s decision to appeal.
“We feel that this step by government is regrettable given the irreparable harm on the tobacco industry along its value chain which was occasioned by the five month-long ban on the sale of cigarettes and tobacco related products for consumption by the local market, and which ban has led to the exponential and unabated growth of the illicit cigarette market, which issue has the knock-on effect of increased losses to the fiscus as less taxes are collected by the receiver,” the Fita wrote in a statement.
“This step by government is further worrisome in that it signals the potential arrival of yet another cigarette sales ban given that the pending appeal will suspend the operation of the Western Cape High Court judgment until the matter is properly ventilated before the courts, which matter could take months if not more to resolve.”
FITA previously came to an agreement with the government stating it be consulted in the case that other cigarette bans are being considered.
January 5, 2021
Minimum Price Challenge Rejected

Photo: Okan Caliskan from Pixabay
A U.S. federal judge has denied a request to halt the portion of a tax measure that established a minimum price for cigarettes in Colorado.
In the November general election, Colorado voters approved a proposition that set the price of cigarettes to at least $7 per pack.
Three manufacturers of discount cigarettes—Liggett Group, Vector Tobacco and Xcaliber International— plus Littleton resident and smoker Jennifer A. Smith, filed a federal complaint, asking for a preliminary injunction to prevent the price floor from taking effect.
The plaintiffs had argued that the provision violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against them, with benefits accruing to in-state retailers of cigarettes. By establishing a price floor, they contended, any money not remitted to the state in the form of taxes would accrue to the sellers of cigarettes.
However, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore deemed unpersuasive the claim that the discount cigarette companies competed not only with premium cigarette manufacturers like Philip Morris but also with the Colorado-based retail establishments that dispense the products.
Moore also decided the minimum price provision did not place an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, even though it does put burdens on certain manufacturers. The provision will now take effect on Friday.
December 30, 2020
RJR must continue legal payments for old brands

Photo: Okan Caliskan from Pixabay
The Florida Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear an appeal by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in a lawsuit rooted in a landmark legal settlement between Florida and leading tobacco companies.
The Supreme Court’s decision effectively let stand a July decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal that required R.J. Reynolds to make more than $100 million in disputed payments.
The 1997 settlement forced tobacco companies to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the state because of smoking-related health costs. In exchange for the payments, the companies received liability protections.
But in the lawsuit, R.J. Reynolds contended that it should not have to make payments to the state related to four brands of cigarettes—Salem, Winston, Kool and Maverick—that it agreed to sell in 2014 to ITG Brands.
Upholding a ruling by a Palm Beach County circuit judge, an appeals court pointed to a lack of changes in the 1997 settlement that would have freed R.J. Reynolds from making the payments.
December 21, 2020