TobaccoReporter logo

Tag: lawsuit

  • Altria, NJOY Sue U.S. ITC for ‘Unconstitutional’ Process Amid Juul Patent Fight

    Altria, NJOY Sue U.S. ITC for ‘Unconstitutional’ Process Amid Juul Patent Fight

    Altria Group Inc. and its NJOY vaping subsidiary filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia on November 7, challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC) administrative law judge (ALJ) appointment process. According to Bloomberg Law, the companies argue that ITC ALJs are “inferior officers” who must be appointed by the president, a court, or a department head — not by the ITC chair alone — as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and Article II.

    Altria and NJOY further contend that the agency’s removal protections for ALJs violate the separation of powers and that the ITC’s adjudicative process deprives them of their Article III and Seventh Amendment rights to a jury trial. The suit seeks to block a pending ITC patent case brought by Juul Labs Inc.

    Juul’s complaint, originally filed in June 2023, accused NJOY of importing and selling vaping devices that infringe four Juul vaporizer patents. On January 29, 2025, the ITC issued a final determination finding that NJOY’s products infringed the asserted patents and imposed a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders against NJOY and Altria. Those orders were set to take effect March 31, 2025, unless overturned by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

    In parallel, Altria and NJOY launched their own ITC action against Juul, but the commission terminated that case on March 3, 2025, ruling that Juul did not infringe the patents asserted by Altria.

  • Public Health Groups Drop Lawsuit Over FDA Menthol Ban Delay

    Public Health Groups Drop Lawsuit Over FDA Menthol Ban Delay

    A coalition of public health organizations, led by the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council (AATCLC), voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) yesterday (October 27). The lawsuit, originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in November 2024, sought to compel the FDA to finalize a long-awaited rule banning menthol cigarettes. The plaintiffs’ action comes after the incoming Trump administration officially withdrew the proposed menthol ban in January 2025, effectively making the lawsuit’s core demand moot, according to Bloomberg.

    The case centered on the FDA’s “unreasonable delay” in issuing a final rule, which began with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in May 2022. The Biden administration’s failure to finalize the rule, reportedly due to political concerns, prompted the legal challenge. However, the subsequent administrative reversal under the new presidential administration closed the door on this particular federal strategy.

    With the federal avenue for a menthol ban now closed, the public health advocates involved in the lawsuit have confirmed they will shift their focus to state and local-level initiatives, according to Bloomberg. By voluntarily dismissing the case, the plaintiffs can redirect their resources and strategic efforts toward more viable legal and political pathways. The dismissal was filed “without prejudice,” meaning the case could theoretically be refiled, but the current political climate and regulatory withdrawal make a renewed federal challenge unlikely in the near term.

  • Cresco Labs Moves to Dismiss Labeling Class Action

    Cresco Labs Moves to Dismiss Labeling Class Action

    Cresco Labs, the Chicago-based cannabis company, asked a federal judge in Illinois to dismiss a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing the company and its subsidiaries of mislabeling cannabis products. The lawsuit alleges that Cresco’s products were inaccurately labeled, potentially misleading consumers about potency and content.

    In its motion, Cresco contends that the claims lack sufficient legal basis and argues that the company has complied with applicable state and federal regulations. The company is seeking to have the case dismissed before it proceeds to discovery or trial.

    No court date has been set yet for a ruling on the motion, and the case remains under review. The outcome could have broader implications for labeling standards and consumer protection in the rapidly growing cannabis industry.

  • RJR Seeks Dismissal of ‘Carbon Neutral’ Vape Lawsuit

    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.

  • Small Tobacco Firms Sue Virginia Over Flavored Vape Restrictions

    Small Tobacco Firms Sue Virginia Over Flavored Vape Restrictions

    Two Virginia-based vape distributors — NOVA Distro Inc. and Tobacco Hut and Vape Fairfax, Inc. — filed a federal lawsuit last week challenging the state’s upcoming restrictions on flavored vapor products. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, names Attorney General Jason Miyares and other state officials as defendants.

    The companies argue that Virginia’s new law, which bars the sale of any nicotine or vapor product not listed on an official state directory and effectively bans flavored vapes, is unconstitutional. According to the complaint, the measure unlawfully delegates federal regulatory powers over tobacco products—reserved for the Food and Drug Administration—to state authorities, violating the Supremacy Clause.

    The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to block the law before it takes effect on December 31, warning that enforcement would force small businesses to pull most of their inventory from shelves. The case, NOVA Distro et al. v. Miyares et al., is among the first legal challenges to a state-level vape directory law, setting up a potential test of federal preemption in the regulation of nicotine products.

  • AOI Kenya Loses $183M Tax Case

    AOI Kenya Loses $183M Tax Case

    Alliance One Tobacco Kenya Limited (AOTKL) was ordered to pay the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) Sh23.7 billion ($182.8 million) after the High Court dismissed its appeal following a protracted tax dispute, ruling the company’s leaf processing amounted to “manufacturing,” and therefore was subject to excise duties, according to Daily Nation Africa. The ruling comes after years of wrangling over corporate income tax, excise duty, and value-added tax liabilities, with KRA alleging under-declarations and misclassification of tobacco products. According to filings, the revenue body argued that AOTKL reported discrepancies between sales declared for corporate tax versus VAT returns, while also disputing how the company classified stemmed tobacco and semi-processed products.

    “Our operations in Kenya ceased nearly 10 years ago; however, an excise tax matter with the Kenya Revenue Authority remains ongoing in the courts,” said Miranda Kinney, a spokesperson from AOI. “While we respect the judicial process, we strongly disagree with the position taken by the High Court and are pursuing all appropriate avenues of appeal. We remain committed to meeting our regulatory and tax obligations while maintaining transparent, responsible business practices. Given this is an ongoing legal matter, we cannot provide further comment at this time.” 

    According to Kenya Law Reporting, the case was brought before the Tax Appeals Tribunal, which in September 2024 issued a mixed ruling, partly upholding KRA’s claims. AOTKL’s transfer pricing practices also came under scrutiny, with KRA challenging documentation around full-cost mark-up adjustments with related parties. Ultimately, despite some partial relief from the Tribunal, the company has been ordered to settle the liability, making it one of the largest tax recoveries in Kenya’s tobacco sector.

  • NJOY Sues FDA Over Delays in Flavored E-Cigarette Approval

    NJOY Sues FDA Over Delays in Flavored E-Cigarette Approval

    NJOY LLC, a subsidiary of Altria Group, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Louisiana last week (August 21), accusing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of unlawfully delaying its review of applications to market flavored e-cigarettes. According to NJOY, the FDA has failed to adhere to statutory deadlines stipulated in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The company claims such delays unfairly hinder its efforts to provide adult smokers with reduced-risk alternatives to combustible tobacco.

    According to the filing, in December 2020, the FDA denied NJOY’s application with only one deficiency listed: that the flavored products’ applications did not show they “would increase the likelihood of complete switching among adult smokers, compared to the Rich Tobacco and Menthol varieties” (products that were granted marketing authorization). In March 2021, NJOY responded, providing data showing the flavored products’ switch rates were 29-68% higher than the approved products after six months of use. The FDA has yet to respond despite repeated requests for updates, leading to last week’s lawsuit.

    Additionally, the filing states that documents received during a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the Office of Science’s epidemiology staff concluded that NJOY adequately addressed the flavor-specific deficiency and that the products were associated with higher rates of cessation, and also that unrequested sales restrictions and reporting requirements offered by NJOY would, according to the Office of Health Communication and Education, mitigate concerns about potential youth initiation.

    The lawsuit underscores growing tensions between major industry firms and the FDA, which is facing a massive backlog of Premarket Tobacco Product Applications, particularly as sales of unauthorized flavored vaping products continue to surge. NJOY argues the delays not only burden its business, but also limit smokers’ access to potentially less harmful products.

  • Judge Allows NYC Lawsuit Against Vape Wholesalers to Proceed

    Judge Allows NYC Lawsuit Against Vape Wholesalers to Proceed

    A Manhattan federal judge denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by New York City against eight vape wholesalers accused of distributing illegal flavored e-cigarettes. Judge Gregory H. Woods determined that the city’s claims were plausible and that the defendants had likely violated federal, state, and local laws regarding the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. 

    Originally filed in state court, the city alleges the companies—Pod Juice, EVO Brands, Midwest Goods Inc., MYLÉ VAPE Inc., MVH I, Inc., Puff Bar Inc., Safa Goods LLC, and Mi-One Brands—violated local and federal laws by “flooding” the market with flavored vapes, despite a citywide ban on such products. The ruling allows the city’s case to move forward, reinforcing its efforts to crack down on youth-targeted vaping products.

    The defendants had argued the lawsuit was preempted by federal law, but the court disagreed, citing the city’s authority to enforce local public health protections.

  • Samsung Back on $10.9M Hook for Vape Battery Explosion

    Samsung Back on $10.9M Hook for Vape Battery Explosion

    Samsung Electronics America Inc. must pay $10.9 million to a Georgia man who said he was seriously injured when the company’s battery inside an e-cigarette device in his pants pocket exploded, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled Monday (June 23).

    Jordan Brewer sued Samsung in July 2020, and a county judge held Samsung liable by default in September 2020 after the company failed to respond to Brewer’s complaint. In December 2020, Samsung asked the court to set aside the default judgment, but the court said, “Samsung’s action in pursuing its company protocol in response to similar lawsuits as ‘a failed legal strategy’ that was ‘willful and deliberate and done with indifference to the correct legal process or else was gross negligence.’”

    In 2022, however, Samsung filed a motion with a new judge, who set aside the judgment, citing unclear damages and a lack of a hearing transcript. Brewer appealed, arguing Samsung didn’t meet its burden to justify overturning the judgment.

    This week, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to Brewer and should not have set aside the judgment based on an incomplete record. The court vacated the order, setting aside the judgment and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard. Since that judgment is now vacated, Samsung’s related appeal trying to open the default was ruled premature and dismissed.

  • Trucking Company Sued for Overcharging Smokers

    Trucking Company Sued for Overcharging Smokers

    An ex-employee of Marten Transport Ltd. is suing the trucking company in Wisconsin federal court, alleging that a tobacco surcharge in its health plan violates federal antidiscrimination law by charging workers who smoke an extra $780 per year for their health-care coverage than those who don’t, without offering a legally compliant way to avoid the penalty.

    In the complaint, plaintiff Mark Maurer said going forward, workers can avoid these penalties by participating in quit-smoking programs, but there’s no way for them to be reimbursed for fees they’ve already paid. This runs afoul of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which allows health plans to charge higher rates to tobacco-using employees only if they provide a “reasonable alternative standard” that allows workers to have the full penalty waived without quitting smoking, the complaint said.

    According to Hylant Law, numerous class-action lawsuits have recently been filed against employers alleging that health plan premium surcharges related to tobacco use violate federal compliance requirements. These lawsuits have been filed by current and former employees of major U.S. companies, such as PepsiCo, Walmart, Target and Whole Foods, who have paid more in premiums due to their tobacco use, often hundreds of dollars more per employee per year.

    A handful of employers have agreed to class-wide settlements over similar cases, including Bass Pro Group LLC for $5 million, Lippert Components Inc. for $310,000, and UGN Inc. for $299,000.