The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that a 2025 state law allowing elected officials to replace members of the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) board at will is unconstitutional, affirming the voter-approved independence of the trust and safeguarding its authority to allocate tobacco settlement funds free from political interference. Established by constitutional amendment in 2000, TSET manages most of Oklahoma’s payments from the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement. The court’s decision preserves the original intent of voters to insulate TSET from political influence and ensures the continuation of its public health mission, a position supported by leading medical and public health organizations that filed an amicus brief backing the trust.
Tag: court
-
Altria Pushes to End Juul’s ITC Patent Investigation
NJOY and Altria Group are asking a federal judge in Virginia to immediately halt a U.S. International Trade Commission investigation triggered by Juul Labs’ nicotine-salt patent claims, arguing the ITC lacks constitutional authority to hear the case. In a reply filed Tuesday (January 6) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the companies urged the court to grant summary judgment and permanently enjoin the ITC proceeding rather than allow it to continue while constitutional challenges are litigated.
The filing argues the investigation violates the Appointments Clause, improperly insulates ITC administrative law judges through double for-cause removal protections, and infringes Article III limits, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. Altria and NJOY contend they are suffering irreparable harm by being subjected to an allegedly unconstitutional process, noting the ITC has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for April 22, 2026.
-
Irish Retailers Lose Fight Against ‘Irrational’ License Fees
A retailers’ group failed in a High Court challenge against Ireland’s new licensing fees of up to €1,800 for selling tobacco and nicotine products. Justice Rory Mulcahy ruled that the former health minister acted lawfully in setting the fees under the Public Health (Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products) Act 2023, finding the charges were justified on public health grounds and not arbitrary.
The new regime, effective from February, replaces a one-off €50 registration fee with renewable annual fees of €1,800 for tobacco and nicotine products, €1,000 for tobacco only, or €800 for nicotine products only. The court rejected claims that the fees were irrational or disproportionately harmful to small retailers, noting that discouraging tobacco sales would not make the regulations unlawful.
-
RJR Seeks Dismissal of ‘Carbon Neutral’ Vape Lawsuit
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. has asked a California federal judge to dismiss a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing the company of misleading consumers by advertising its Vuse e-cigarettes as “the world’s first carbon neutral vape brand.” In its filing with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the company said its statements were backed by independent third-party certifications from Verra and Vertis Environmental Finance Ltd., insisting that its carbon-neutral claims were accurate, verified, and aligned with recognized environmental standards. R.J. Reynolds argued that it did not exaggerate its emissions data and said plaintiffs failed to prove any economic loss tied to the marketing claim.
According to ClassAction.org, the lawsuit, filed on May 28, 2025, seeks $5 million in damages and alleges that British American Tobacco (BAT) and its subsidiary R.J. Reynolds misled consumers with a deceptive sustainability campaign. Plaintiffs argue that the “carbon neutral” label relied on flawed carbon offset projects, including Uruguay’s Guanaré Forest Plantations Project, which an independent review found had no measurable climate benefit. The complaint claims the company continued to use the “carbon neutral” slogan even after learning of issues with the offset program, calling the campaign a marketing strategy aimed at enhancing brand loyalty rather than environmental responsibility.
A BAT spokesperson previously said that Vuse’s carbon-neutral status was independently verified in 2021 and that related marketing materials were discontinued by the end of 2023, according to Law360.
-
Altria Drops Suit as Elf Bar Exits California Market
Elf Bar’s parent company, iMiracle, agreed to cease sales of flavored disposable vapes in California, effectively ending a protracted legal battle with Altria’s e-cigarette unit NJOY. Under a joint motion, iMiracle will accept a permanent injunction preventing it from selling or shipping flavored vape products into California and will also refrain from shipping to other jurisdictions if the products are likely destined for California.
The lawsuit, initially filed in late 2023, alleged that iMiracle’s flavored products competed unfairly with NJOY’s FDA-authorized devices and violated California’s flavored tobacco ban and federal regulations. Most defendants in the original suit were dropped; iMiracle remained the principal target.
Though iMiracle denies liability, it agreed that violation of the injunction would be treated as contempt of court. The settlement is conditioned on California maintaining its current flavor ban; if the law is repealed or amended substantially, the injunction may no longer apply.
-
U.S. Judge Grants Recognition to $23B Canadian Tobacco Settlement
A New York bankruptcy judge yesterday (August 26) approved U.S. recognition of Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.’s restructuring plan, a key step in a landmark C$32.5 billion (US$23.6 billion) settlement resolving decades of Canadian tobacco litigation. Judge John P. Mastando III granted Chapter 15 approval without objection, clearing the way for the settlement, one of the largest restructurings in Canadian history, to take effect across both jurisdictions.
The deal, approved by an Ontario court in March, involves Imperial, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans Benson & Hedges Inc. It will be funded over 20 years, beginning with a C$12 billion (US$8.7 billion) upfront payment, followed by profit-sharing contributions.
The agreement resolves more than a trillion Canadian dollars in claims from class actions and provincial governments over smoking-related health costs.
-
Vaping Industry Battles North Carolina E-Cig Ban
A coalition led by the Vapor Technology Association is appealing North Carolina’s new vaping law, which bans the sale of e-cigarettes not approved or pending approval by the FDA. The law, effective May 1, 2025, has already removed popular brands like Elf Bar and Geek Bar from store shelves. The law mandates that only e-cigarette products with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marketing authorization may be sold in the state, enforced through a product registry managed by the state Revenue Department. Products must be certified and listed or removed within a 60-day grace period.
Industry groups argue that the state is overstepping federal authority and violating constitutional protections and that the law discriminates between tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine products, raising concerns under the Equal Protection Clause.
A lower court refused to block the law, and the case now heads to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, with national implications for state regulation of nicotine products. The outcome could determine whether entire product categories, such as flavored disposables, can be restricted, potentially reshaping the balance between state and federal oversight.
-
Wisconsin Vape Law Sparks Federal Lawsuit Over FDA Authority
A Wisconsin trade group filed a federal lawsuit aiming to block a new state law regulating vape product sales, claiming it oversteps federal authority and threatens thousands of small businesses. Wisconsinites for Alternatives to Smoking and Tobacco (WiscoFAST) filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, challenging Wisconsin Statute 995.15, which took effect July 1.
The law empowers the Department of Revenue to fine sellers and manufacturers $1,000 per day starting September 1 if they sell vape products not authorized by the FDA. So far, only 34 e-cigarette products have FDA marketing approval.
WiscoFAST is seeking a preliminary injunction, arguing the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by encroaching on the FDA’s exclusive authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). They also say it breaches the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by unfairly banning some non-tobacco nicotine products.
“[The law] will strip Wisconsinites of their right to purchase the vaping products they use to stay smoke-free, while threatening to shutter 3,000 small businesses that are vital to our state’s economy,” said Tyler Hall, president of WiscoFAST. “This law disregards the FDA’s careful approach to regulating ENDS and could push former smokers back to deadly combustible cigarettes. We’re fighting to protect consumer choice and the livelihoods of thousands of Wisconsin workers.”
The American Lung Association (ALA) also disagrees with the new law, saying it likely won’t improve public health. Molly Collins, the ALA’s Wisconsin advocacy director, argued that raising the purchase age and increasing vape prices would be more effective.
-
Judge Seals Docs in Juul Case
On Tuesday (Feb. 25), a federal judge in North Carolina granted requests by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and Philip Morris’ parent company, Altria, to seal documents in their ongoing royalty dispute, keeping details of their licensing agreements with the vape brand JUUL confidential.
“The court ruled that the agreements contained sensitive business information — including financial terms, licensing strategies and negotiation details — that could harm competitive standing, and all six motions to seal were granted,” Andrea Keckley wrote for Law360.
The court found that an amendment to a licensing agreement between Altria and JUUL and a copy of a licensing agreement between the two were confidential and that disclosing them would “harm the party’s competitive standing or otherwise harm its business interests.” The filings stem RJR’s bid for relief against a $95 million judgement after a jury sided with Altria in a 2022 patent infringement case. The defense has argued that it should receive relief because a deal with Juul sublicensed the asserted patents.
“Ultimately, however, this court need not decide whether the documents or hearing are protected by the First Amendment’s right of access, because even assuming the First Amendment standard applies, movants have put forth compelling interests in sealing the order and the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored such that the First Amendment right of access has been overcome,” U.S. District Judge William Lindsay Osteen Jr wrote. “Although this court has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing, the parties have already redacted their filings so as to allow public access to as much information as possible without compromising sensitive business information,” he wrote. “It is this court’s view that the parties’ proposed redactions reflect the least drastic alternative at this time.”
-
Montana Judge Denies Attempt to Block Tobacco Lobbyists
A federal judge in Missoula, Montana, denied a state representative’s attempts to block lobbyists from major cigarette manufacturers from engaging lawmakers on his bill, Wednesday (Feb. 26).
Rep. Ron Marshall, who also owns a vape shop, sued Altria and R.J. Reynolds in federal court earlier this month alleging the companies violated anti-lobbying provisions set out in a 1998 settlement. One of the bills lobbied against was H.B. 149 that would have required vaping products be removed from all-ages retailers like gas stations and sold only in age-restricted locations like liquor stores or vape shops. Marshall sponsored the bill.
U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen found that the settlement agreement forbids the states from assigning any enforcement of those anti-lobbying provisions to a third party. Therefore, Marshall did not have any legal footing to bring the lawsuit against Altria and R.J. Reynolds. The enforcement duties would typically belong to Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, but Marshall said Knudsen “would have too great a conflict of interest to take up the case as both Altria and R.J. Reynolds were ‘platinum’ sponsors” of his inauguration party in January.
After the ruling, Marshall filed and was granted a dismissal of the case.