TobaccoReporter logo

Tag: lawsuit

  • 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)

  • NY Vape Sellers Can’t Escape AG Suit Over Flavored Sales

    NY Vape Sellers Can’t Escape AG Suit Over Flavored Sales

    A federal judge rejected a bid by makers and distributors of flavored vaping products to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Office of the New York Attorney General alleging they helped fuel a youth vaping epidemic. The ruling means companies behind popular brands like Puff Bar and others must continue defending against claims that they misrepresented the safety and legality of their products and violated state public‑health and consumer protection laws.

    New York’s lawsuit targets more than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of flavored disposable e‑cigarettes — which have been illegal to sell in New York since 2020 — accusing them of designing, marketing, and distributing candy‑ and fruit‑flavored vapes that appeal to minors, mislead consumers about health risks, and undermine state efforts to curb underage nicotine use.

    The judge found that the state’s complaint sufficiently alleges misrepresentation and other unlawful conduct to survive a motion to dismiss, keeping in place claims that could lead to fines, corrective advertising, and injunctions against future sales.

  • Hestia Opposes Motion to Dismiss in Nasco Case

    Hestia Opposes Motion to Dismiss in Nasco Case

    Hestia Tobacco has filed an opposition to The Tobacco Company v. Nasco Products LLC motion to dismiss in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, arguing its complaint sufficiently pleads a claim for tortious interference with contract. Hestia says Nasco knowingly contacted state regulators to have Hestia-branded cigarettes removed from approved tobacco directories, rendering the products illegal to sell and preventing distributors and retailers from honoring existing agreements. The company contends this was a deliberate effort to make its inventory “contraband,” not a mere downstream consequence of a contract dispute. Hestia further argues Nasco’s claim of “justification” is an affirmative defense that cannot be resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage and that Nasco improperly asks the court to weigh evidence and consider materials outside the complaint before discovery.

    The case stems from a January lawsuit filed by The Tobacco Company, operator of the Hestia brand, against its former manufacturer, Nasco Products LLC. Hestia alleges Nasco breached their manufacturing agreement by sharply increasing production costs and then taking steps that led to Hestia products being pulled from sale in multiple states, damaging its distributor and retailer relationships. Nasco, in seeking dismissal, argues the complaint relies on vague references to contracts and fails to detail how its conduct amounted to interference or fraud. Hestia is seeking monetary damages under federal diversity jurisdiction as the dispute moves into early procedural stages.

  • Court Allows Majority of Juul Lawsuits to Proceed

    Court Allows Majority of Juul Lawsuits to Proceed

    A judge in Delaware Superior Court largely denied a motion by Juul Labs Inc. to dismiss more than 1,000 consolidated lawsuits alleging the company misled consumers about the health risks and addictiveness of its e-cigarettes. The plaintiffs claim Juul’s marketing, product design, and nicotine formulations contributed to addiction and health harms, particularly among young users, and that the company failed to adequately warn consumers. Juul had argued that many of the claims were legally deficient and should be thrown out before trial.

    The court trimmed or dismissed certain narrower counts, but allowed most of the core claims to move forward, including allegations tied to consumer protection, fraud, and failure to warn. The ruling means the bulk of the litigation will proceed into further discovery and pretrial phases.

  • Baltimore Argues 1998 MSA Doesn’t Cover Cigarette Litter

    Baltimore Argues 1998 MSA Doesn’t Cover Cigarette Litter

    The City of Baltimore told a Maryland state court that the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement does not shield tobacco companies from liability in its lawsuit over environmental harm caused by nonbiodegradable cigarette filters. The city is seeking to proceed with claims against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Philip Morris USA, and Liggett Group LLC, arguing that the decades-old settlement addressed healthcare costs related to smoking, not municipal expenses tied to cigarette butt litter and environmental cleanup. Baltimore contends that its suit targets a separate issue involving plastic filter waste and the burden placed on city services, and therefore should not be dismissed on preemption grounds.

  • Exploding Vape Lawsuit Focuses on Chinese Maker  

    Exploding Vape Lawsuit Focuses on Chinese Maker  

    A lawsuit over an exploding vape battery in the U.S. is now focusing on a Chinese manufacturer after the plaintiff agreed to drop claims against the product’s domestic distributor. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, was brought by a man who says he suffered second- and third-degree burns when a vape battery exploded in his pocket. While the distributor has been dismissed from the case, the plaintiff will continue pursuing claims against LG Chem Ltd., the China-based company that manufactured the e-cigarette device.

  • Nasco Files to Have Claims Thrown Out of Hestia Lawsuit

    Nasco Files to Have Claims Thrown Out of Hestia Lawsuit

    Nasco Products LLC asked a federal judge in North Carolina to dismiss portions of a lawsuit filed by the owners of Hestia Tobacco, arguing that the complaint fails to clearly identify the contracts it allegedly interfered with or provide sufficient details to support claims of fraud. In the new filings, Nasco contends that the plaintiffs rely on vague allegations and have not specified which agreements were disrupted or how the company’s actions constituted fraudulent conduct.

    The lawsuit was filed in January by The Tobacco Company, which operates the Hestia Tobacco brand, against its former manufacturer, Nasco, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Hestia alleges that Nasco breached their manufacturing and supply agreement by sharply increasing production prices and then encouraging retailers to remove Hestia products from store shelves, actions the company says harmed its sales and business relationships. The suit seeks monetary damages and was filed under federal diversity jurisdiction.

  • BAT Facing UK Lawsuit Over North Korea Sanctions

    BAT Facing UK Lawsuit Over North Korea Sanctions

    British American Tobacco is facing a London High Court lawsuit from over 100 current and former shareholders who allege the company failed to properly disclose to markets its breaches of U.S. sanctions related to business in North Korea, Reuters is reporting. The claims follow BAT’s 2023 settlement with U.S. authorities, in which a subsidiary admitted to conspiring to violate sanctions and commit bank fraud by selling tobacco products to North Korea between 2007 and 2017, resulting in a $635 million payment. The lawsuit, filed on February 27, accuses BAT of withholding information about its North Korea operations for over a decade, though the value of the claim and further details have not been disclosed.

  • Smoore, Distributors Want Antitrust Claims Dismissed

    Smoore, Distributors Want Antitrust Claims Dismissed

    Vape manufacturers and distributors moved to dismiss consumer antitrust claims in consolidated multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In motions filed Feb. 20, Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. Ltd. and Smoore International Holdings, along with distributor defendants 3Win Corp., Jupiter Research LLC, Canna Brand Solutions, and Greenlane Holdings Inc., argued that plaintiffs lack standing and have not plausibly alleged a price-fixing conspiracy. The case involves closed cannabis oil vaporization systems, with plaintiffs alleging agreements to set a price floor and restrict competing products.

    Defendants contend they sell empty vape hardware, not cannabis-filled products, which they describe as a separate market, and argue consumers are too remote from the hardware market to bring antitrust claims. They further assert the complaint lacks specific pricing, market share, and foreclosure allegations, and maintain that revived claims under the Cartwright Act seek relief tied to products that remain illegal under federal law. The court has not yet ruled.

  • Enorama Sues FDA for Disparate Pouch PMTAs

    Enorama Sues FDA for Disparate Pouch PMTAs

    Enorama Pharma Inc. filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleging the agency unlawfully imposed costly premarket tobacco application (PMTA) requirements on its nicotine oral pouches. In a complaint filed Feb. 17, the company argues the FDA violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Administrative Procedure Act by subjecting pouches to the same regulatory framework as combustible tobacco without properly assessing the impact on small businesses. Enorama contends that although the FDA previously suggested publicly available data could support applications, it now requires product-specific scientific studies, dramatically increasing costs.

    According to the filing, the FDA estimated bundled application costs between $181,686 and $2 million, but Enorama claims actual expenses range from $3 million to more than $15 million — forcing some manufacturers to exit the market. The company also alleges unequal treatment, asserting that larger competitors such as Philip Morris International and Altria Group have been allowed to market similar nicotine pouch products despite pending applications, while Enorama received a refusal-to-file letter. Attorney Eric N. Heyer of Thompson Hine LLP said the company plans to seek a preliminary injunction to halt the FDA’s action.