TobaccoReporter logo

Tag: lawsuit

  • Arizona Vape Shops Fined $460K for Selling to Minors

    Arizona Vape Shops Fined $460K for Selling to Minors

    Arizona’s Attorney General Kris Mayes ordered that a vape shop owner with several locations pay $460,000 in restitution for illegally selling tobacco and nicotine products to underage customers. Mayes’ office cited multiple violations at various locations, and alleged the stores continued illegal sales even after citations, fines, and warnings. The lawsuit said Pro Source Supply LLC, Pro Source Vapes LLC, and Pro Source CBD LLC, all owned by Timothy Kell, refused to check IDs and knowingly sold tobacco and nicotine products to underage buyers.

    As part of the settlement, Pro Source must implement strict age-verification policies, enhanced employee training, electronic ID scanning, and regular compliance checks. The company is also prohibited from selling single cigarettes, flavored cigarillos at certain locations, and products resembling candy, toys, or school supplies. A compliance officer will be hired, and third-party audits will be reported to the attorney general’s office.

  • Juul, NJOY, and Altria Battle Over Public Document Case

    Juul, NJOY, and Altria Battle Over Public Document Case

    Juul Labs asked a federal court in Arizona to block rivals NJOY and Altria from using documents hosted in a public University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) database, according to a joint court filing dated December 24. The dispute arises in an ongoing patent lawsuit, with Juul arguing that some documents were inadvertently disclosed during a large-scale production tied to state settlement agreements and remain protected by attorney–client privilege.

    NJOY and Altria oppose the request, saying the documents have been publicly accessible online for months or years and are therefore no longer privileged. They argue the materials may contain evidence relevant to alleged misconduct in Juul’s patent filings. After failed negotiations, the issue has been submitted to U.S. District Judge John J. Tuchi, who will decide whether the publicly available documents can be excluded from use in the litigation.

  • FCTC Expansion Pushing Israel to Consider Tobacco Lawsuits

    FCTC Expansion Pushing Israel to Consider Tobacco Lawsuits

    Israel could see major legal and financial action against tobacco companies following the recent expansion of Article 19 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which includes calling on governments to file civil lawsuits to recover health costs caused by smoking. Attorney Amos Hozner told Arutz Sheva that in Israel, such lawsuits could generate NIS 40 billion ($12.4 billion) or more, given smoking prevalence over 20% and high public health costs. The provision encourages government authorities to pursue civil and administrative remedies against tobacco companies.

    Hozner pointed to high smoking rates among young people in Israel’s haredi community, with up to 54% of yeshiva students and 80% of secondary school students having tried smoking, and 56% of 17- to 24-year-olds smoking regularly.

  • Cannabis Co. Says NY’s Seed-to-Sale Regs Create Undue Costs

    Cannabis Co. Says NY’s Seed-to-Sale Regs Create Undue Costs

    Cannabis company Veterans Holdings, Inc filed a lawsuit this week in New York Supreme Court against the state, challenging its seed-to-sale tracking system, arguing it significantly increases operating and compliance costs for licensed businesses. The program, overseen by the Office of Cannabis Management, requires cannabis products to be tracked from cultivation through retail sale using the “Metrc” platform.

    According to the company, and echoed by other growers and processors, the program’s tagging, reporting, and data-entry requirements sharply increase compliance expenses, particularly for smaller operators. Businesses say costs associated with mandatory tags, system integration, staff training, and ongoing reporting could erode already thin margins in the state’s developing legal cannabis market.

  • Vape Reps Appeal Mississippi Law to 5th Circ.

    Vape Reps Appeal Mississippi Law to 5th Circ.

    A coalition of businesses that sell vape products containing synthetic nicotine appealed a U.S. federal court’s refusal to block a Mississippi law restricting the sale of those products. The groups are taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied their request for a temporary injunction.

    The contested state law, House Bill 916, which took effect in July 2025, bans the sale of e-cigarette products containing synthetic nicotine in Mississippi. Enforcement, including penalties and product confiscations, began later in the year.

    The plaintiffs, including industry groups such as the Vapor Technology Association and several retailers, argue the law is preempted by federal authority under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, asserting that it effectively conditions sales on FDA marketing authorization—a domain they say belongs exclusively to the federal government.

    Mississippi’s Department of Revenue Commissioner Chris Graham is named as the defendant in the appeal.

  • Cannabis Co. Countersues Competitor for AI-Fabricated Extortion

    Cannabis Co. Countersues Competitor for AI-Fabricated Extortion

    Leafwell Inc. filed a federal lawsuit against fellow medical marijuana company My Florida Green, alleging its competitor used artificial intelligence to fabricate legal claims as part of an extortion scheme designed to damage Leafwell’s business. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida last week.

    According to the complaint, My Florida Green allegedly filed a factually and legally deficient lawsuit in September, accusing Leafwell of unlawful business practices, then used the litigation to pressure the company to settle the lawsuit, scare off business partners, and otherwise harm Leafwell’s operations. Leafwell claims the filings were AI-generated and lacked proper factual and legal grounding.

    According to Justia Law, the court is scrutinizing the original filings, highlighting the growing business and legal risks tied to the misuse of AI in litigation and competitive disputes, particularly in highly regulated sectors like medical cannabis.

  • USA Vape Lab Sues FDA Over PMTA Delay

    USA Vape Lab Sues FDA Over PMTA Delay

    USA Vape Lab, maker of the Naked100 line of bottled e-liquids, filed suit against the Food and Drug Administration, alleging it unlawfully delayed action on its premarket tobacco applications for more than five years. The suit was filed November 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    In the complaint, the Huntington Beach, Calif.–based company says it submitted extensive PMTAs for its flavored and tobacco e-liquid products ahead of the September 9, 2020 deadline. Despite a Tobacco Control Act provision requiring FDA to issue decisions within 180 days, the agency has yet to act, the suit states. USA Vape Lab is asking the court to order FDA to issue final determinations.

    The company also argues FDA must consider what it describes as robust population-level evidence included in its submissions. According to the filing, a randomized controlled trial showed nearly one-third of participants achieved six-month cigarette abstinence when using Naked100 e-liquids—quit rates the company claims are two to three times higher than those reported for FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapies. USA Vape Lab further alleges that flavors such as Really Berry and Strawberry Pom demonstrate net public-health benefits that outweigh potential youth risks and exceed those of comparable tobacco flavors.

    “We felt that we had no choice but to initiate this lawsuit,” founder Huy Nguyen said in a statement, criticizing the agency for years-long delays while threatening enforcement actions against products lacking marketing orders.

    USA Vape Lab manufactures a range of popular e-liquids, including American Patriots, Crisp Menthol, and Lava Flow.

  • NYC, Vape Companies Settle Flavor Dispute

    NYC, Vape Companies Settle Flavor Dispute

    New York City reached a settlement with two e-cigarette wholesalers accused of distributing flavored vapes in violation of the city’s ban, according to Law 360. Under the agreement, EnviroMD Group and GT Imports will stop pushing these products within the five boroughs, facing $1,000 fines for any future violations. The move comes as part of a broader crackdown by the NYC Law Department, which has filed lawsuits against multiple distributors for illegally supplying disposable flavored e-cigarettes.

    This settlement is one piece of the city’s aggressive enforcement effort against flavored nicotine products. The administration has pursued both civil penalties and court orders to block sales and distribution, emphasizing its commitment to protecting youth from flavored vape devices.

  • 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.