TobaccoReporter logo

Tag: lawsuit

  • Decision Nears in Brazil’s Tobacco Health-Cost Lawsuit

    Decision Nears in Brazil’s Tobacco Health-Cost Lawsuit

    A landmark lawsuit filed by Brazil’s Office of the Attorney General in 2019 seeking to recover public healthcare costs linked to smoking has reached the decision stage. All legal submissions have been completed, including an opinion from the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office supporting the government’s claims. The Federal Court in Porto Alegre will now decide whether the country’s largest cigarette manufacturers are liable for health damages associated with the marketing and sale of their products.

    The case targets BAT Brazil and Philip Morris Brazil, and their parent companies, British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International, seeking compensation for tobacco-related healthcare expenditures. The lawsuit estimates that smoking causes about 177,000 deaths annually in Brazil and R$75 billion ($15 billion) in healthcare costs.

  • Altria, Juul Ask 9th Circ. To Overturn Antitrust Classes

    Altria, Juul Ask 9th Circ. To Overturn Antitrust Classes

    Altria and Juul Labs are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a lower court’s decision certifying nationwide antitrust classes in litigation challenging Altria’s former investment in Juul. According to Law 360, the companies are arguing that the certified classes improperly combine a wide range of purchasers with differing legal claims under the laws of multiple states, making class treatment inappropriate.

    The underlying lawsuit alleges that Altria’s 2018 acquisition of a 35% stake in Juul reduced competition in the U.S. e-cigarette market after Altria withdrew its own competing vapor products. Plaintiffs claim the transaction allowed Juul to maintain higher prices and limited consumer choice. Altria and Juul deny the allegations and contend the district court erred by certifying classes that they say contain materially different groups of purchasers with varying legal and factual issues.

  • Minnesota AG Sues Local Company for Selling Flavored Vapes

    Minnesota AG Sues Local Company for Selling Flavored Vapes

    Minnesota AG Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit against local e-cigarette manufacturer Maduro Distributors, alleging the company sold banned flavored vape products under its The Loon brand that were marketed in ways appealing to youth. The complaint, filed in Ramsey County District Court, accuses the Fridley-based company of selling products with flavors including cotton candy and blue razz slushy, using “kid-friendly characters” in promotions, and falsely representing some products as FDA-approved.

    The Loon sells disposable and refillable vapes as well as nicotine pouches and previously received an FDA warning letter for marketing unauthorized products, according to The Minnesota Star Tribune. Maduro said it had changed flavor names before Minnesota’s 2024 ban took effect and removed the FDA approval claim from a third-party website, arguing it had cooperated with state officials.

  • Public Health Groups Sueing FDA Over New Vape, Pouch Stance

    Public Health Groups Sueing FDA Over New Vape, Pouch Stance

    A coalition of public health organizations, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association, filed a federal lawsuit yesterday (July 14) challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s May 2026 enforcement guidance for e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches. The plaintiffs argue the policy unlawfully allows unauthorized products to remain on the market without the premarket scientific review required under the Tobacco Control Act, creating an enforcement safe-harbor for products that FDA has previously identified as posing significant youth appeal.

    Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the lawsuit seeks to overturn the guidance, alleging it violates both the Tobacco Control Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, and could have significant implications for manufacturers and retailers by determining whether products with pending marketing applications can continue to be sold while awaiting FDA review.

  • FDA Faces $10M Lawsuit from Cigar Companies Over User Fees

    FDA Faces $10M Lawsuit from Cigar Companies Over User Fees

    Nine premium cigar manufacturers filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking at least $10 million plus interest in refunds of FDA user fees paid between 2016 and 2023. The lawsuit follows the cigar industry’s victory in a separate legal challenge that resulted in premium cigars being exempted from FDA regulation, with the companies arguing they should not have been required to pay user fees on products the agency ultimately lacked authority to regulate.

    Arturo Fuente, Ashton, CLE Cigar, J.C. Newman, Oliva, La Flor Dominicana, My Father Cigars, Padrón, and Rocky Patel contend they paid the fees despite premium cigars being excluded from most FDA requirements and are now seeking reimbursement after the FDA stopped collecting user fees on premium cigars following a key 2023 court ruling. Court filings in the earlier litigation suggested the government could face more than $100 million in past user fee refunds. The case has been assigned to Judge Edward H. Meyers, with the plaintiffs represented by Morgan Lewis, including attorney Michael Edney, who led much of the industry’s successful challenge to the FDA’s premium cigar regulations.

  • BAT’s Case for Violating North Korean Sanctions Dropped

    BAT’s Case for Violating North Korean Sanctions Dropped

    A U.S. federal judge dismissed the government’s criminal case against British American Tobacco after the company fulfilled the terms of a three-year deferred prosecution agreement related to sanctions violations involving North Korea. The U.S. Department of Justice said BAT complied fully with the 2023 agreement, including strengthening compliance systems and paying approximately $630 million in penalties, one of the largest sanctions-related fines tied to North Korea.

    The case stemmed from allegations that BAT continued supplying tobacco products to North Korea between 2007 and 2017 through a third-party entity after publicly exiting the market. With the dismissal granted by the court, the matter concludes following the company’s settlement and compliance measures.

  • Altria, Juul Seek Pause in Antitrust Case Pending Appeal

    Altria, Juul Seek Pause in Antitrust Case Pending Appeal

    Earlier this week, Altria and Juul asked a California federal court to pause an ongoing antitrust case while they appeal a class certification ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The lawsuit centers on Altria’s 2018 $12.8 billion investment in Juul, which plaintiffs allege reduced competition by prompting Altria to exit the e-cigarette market, leading to higher prices and fewer product options.

    The companies argue that the appeal raises significant legal questions around class definitions and applicable laws, and that continuing the case could result in unnecessary litigation if the ruling is altered. Plaintiffs have opposed the request, noting the case has been ongoing for more than six years, as both sides acknowledge the current trial schedule will need to be revised pending the appellate process.

  • Union Seeks Dismissal of ITG Challenge in Retiree Health Dispute

    Union Seeks Dismissal of ITG Challenge in Retiree Health Dispute

    A tobacco workers’ union is asking a North Carolina federal court to dismiss ITG Brands’ attempt to overturn a November 2025 arbitration ruling on retiree healthcare benefits. The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) Local 317-T argues the company’s legal challenge was improperly filed and does not comply with required procedures under the Federal Arbitration Act.

    The dispute stems from an arbitration decision issued by arbitrator Dennis Nolan in favor of the union for a yet-to-be-disclosed amount, which ITG Brands is seeking to vacate. The union maintains that, because the filing was procedurally flawed, the court should reject the challenge and allow the arbitration award to stand. The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

  • Texas Smoke Shops Blame Supplier Over Raids, Frozen Funds

    Texas Smoke Shops Blame Supplier Over Raids, Frozen Funds

    Two Texas smoke shop owners have filed a lawsuit against vape supplier Delta Munchies LLC, alleging the company sold them products containing illegal levels of THC while marketing them as compliant hemp. According to the complaint, the shops were subsequently subjected to police raids, arrests, and the freezing of nearly $5 million in business funds after authorities determined the products violated state law.

    The plaintiffs argue they relied on the supplier’s representations that the products were legal and are seeking damages for financial losses and legal consequences stemming from the enforcement actions.

  • RJR Seeks to Block Lawyer’s Live Testimony in Altria Dispute

    RJR Seeks to Block Lawyer’s Live Testimony in Altria Dispute

    R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. asked a North Carolina court to quash a trial subpoena that would require one of its in-house attorneys to testify in person at an evidentiary hearing in an ongoing royalty dispute with Altria Group. The company argues that a previously recorded deposition of the attorney should suffice, saying live testimony would be unnecessary and burdensome.

    The dispute centers on royalty obligations tied to vaping technology and agreements between the rival firms. Reynolds maintains that compelling its lawyer to appear would intrude on privileged matters and exceed what is needed for the court to assess the evidentiary issues. The matter is before a judge in North Carolina, who will decide whether the deposition recording can replace in-court testimony.

    Source: Law 360 (pay)