TobaccoReporter logo

Tag: RJ Reynolds

  • 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)

  • 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.

  • EG America and RJR’s Reconfigured Planogram Paying Off

    EG America and RJR’s Reconfigured Planogram Paying Off

    EG America’s said its backbar optimization strategy is driving significant results, with modern oral nicotine products achieving double-digit volume growth in 2025 and outpacing industry trends in the segment. Operating more than 1,500 locations, the retailer partnered with R.J. Reynolds to expand its VELO Plus synthetic nicotine pouch line, using analytics and supplier collaboration to optimize space and assortment. By reallocating underperforming areas and adding new facings without disrupting category balance, EG America created a planogram designed for growth, supporting top-selling segments while maintaining overall visibility.

  • ITC Opens ENDS Investigation on Reynolds Complaint

    ITC Opens ENDS Investigation on Reynolds Complaint

    The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has launched an investigation into certain disposable and closed-system electronic nicotine delivery systems and related components following a complaint filed by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and affiliated companies. The complaint alleges violations of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act, state and local flavor bans, directory requirements, and excise tax compliance, claiming that imports and sales of these products threaten the U.S. industry.

    Respondents include nine U.S. distributors such as D&A Distribution and Midwest Goods, as well as seven manufacturers based in China and Hong Kong, including Geek Miracle and Shenzhen Geekvape Technology. The USITC has not ruled on the merits and will hold evidentiary hearings before issuing a determination, with potential remedies including exclusion and cease-and-desist orders.

  • RJR Closes Arguments in $14M Smoker Lawsuit

    RJR Closes Arguments in $14M Smoker Lawsuit

    A Florida jury heard closing arguments on Monday (January 27) in a lawsuit seeking $14 million in damages from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. for the pain and suffering of a former smoker who later required a lung transplant. Attorneys for the plaintiff argued that the company should be held liable for 14 years of debilitating health consequences caused by smoking-related disease, including severe respiratory failure that ultimately led to the transplant.

    The case is part of Florida’s long-running Engle progeny litigation, which allows individual smokers or their families to pursue damages against tobacco companies. R.J. Reynolds disputed the damages claim, arguing that the smoker was aware of the risks associated with cigarettes and continued smoking despite widespread public health warnings. The jury is expected to decide whether the company is legally responsible and, if so, the appropriate level of compensation.

  • Reynolds Files Complaint with ITC Over Illicit Products

    Reynolds Files Complaint with ITC Over Illicit Products

    R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and its subsidiaries have filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking an investigation into alleged unlawful practices by Heaven Gifts International—the company behind Elf Bar and Geek Bar—along with its subsidiaries and nine U.S. distributors. According to Law360, the 247-page complaint accuses the respondents of selling flavored vaping products in jurisdictions where they are banned, selling products not listed in required state directories at the time of sale, and evading state and local excise taxes, conduct Reynolds frames as unfair competition under Section 337 of the Tariff Act and noncompliance with the PACT Act. The ITC has acknowledged receipt of the complaint and opened a public comment process.

    Reynolds argues that the alleged violations have enabled a large, illicit market that has significantly undercut lawful products such as its Vuse brand. The company pointed to FDA data showing that only 39 e-cigarette products and devices are currently authorized for sale in the U.S., including 16 from Reynolds and none from Heaven Gifts or its affiliates. Reynolds is seeking broad remedies, including a general or limited exclusion order blocking imports of the accused products, cease-and-desist orders against the named companies, and the imposition of a bond during the ITC’s 60-day presidential review period.

  • Philip Morris Pushes for Arbitration in Washington MSA Dispute

    Philip Morris Pushes for Arbitration in Washington MSA Dispute

    Philip Morris USA (PM USA) urged a King County Superior Court judge in Washington State to compel arbitration in its dispute with R.J. Reynolds (RJR) and other tobacco companies. The conflict centers on longstanding disagreements over the annual Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) payments to the state.

    RJR and fellow plaintiffs claim PM USA aims to derail a separate 2025 settlement signed between RJR and Washington by attempting to enforce an arbitration clause dating back to a 2017 agreement. They argue PM USA is improperly interfering in a deal it is not directly part of.

    This week, in response, PM USA submitted a motion to compel arbitration, asserting that RJR and the other defendants are bound by the 2017 arbitration clause and that the court must defer to this private resolution mechanism. The outcome of this procedural motion could significantly influence the future of tobacco payment disputes under the MSA—either moving them out of public courtrooms or keeping them subject to private arbitration panels.

  • Massachusetts Judge Issues Record-Setting Judgement

    Massachusetts Judge Issues Record-Setting Judgement

    A judge in Hampden County, Massachusetts, issued one of the biggest individual civil judgments in history, awarding $105 million to the family of a deceased smoker. Judge Edward McDonough Jr.’s decision came a month after a jury awarded the plaintiffs $10.6 million after a month-long trial, with the judge saying the defendant, R.J. Reynolds, “willfully and wantonly” engaged in a conspiracy to hide the health hazards of cigarette smoking.

    Kevin Penza, along with his daughter, Kimberly Breen Penza, sued on behalf of his late wife, Jacqueline, who died from lung cancer at 59. The plaintiffs argued Jacqueline spent much of her life trying to quit the smoking habit, but was trapped in a nicotine addiction she could not defeat. The defense countered she was a committed smoker who made her own choices and refused to quit despite pleas from her family and doctors.

    McDonough began with the jury’s $10.6 million decision and added $2 million in attorney’s fees. The additional sum included interest and fees, but he did not clarify how the final sum was reached. R.J. Reynolds is expected to appeal this ruling.

  • Top Court Declines to Hear Flavor Ban Appeal

    Top Court Declines to Hear Flavor Ban Appeal

    Image: Tobacco Reporter archive

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27 declined to hear an appeal by three Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries seeking to overturn the county of Los Angeles ban on flavored tobacco products, reports Law360.

    R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., American Snuff Co. and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. had petitioned the high court in October to take another look at the case after the full 9th Circuit upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the suit.

    The RAI companies said the 9th Circuit had twice before erred in allowing sales bans at the state and local level that were preempted by federal law.

    While the federal Tobacco Control Act grants state and local municipalities broad authority to regulate the sale of tobacco products, it does not allow them to completely prohibit the sale of those products for failing to meet state or local tobacco product standards, the companies argued.

    In dismissing their initial suit, District Judge Dale S. Fischer in 2021 found that the ban doesn’t regulate tobacco product standards. The judge said the ordinance is protected by the federal law’s preservation clause, which allows states and localities to prohibit the sale of tobacco products even if those bans are stricter than federal law.

    The companies appealed, calling the ban unconstitutional and saying state and local governments can’t bar the sale of tobacco products because they disagree with federal tobacco standards.

    L.A. County countered that the ban doesn’t pose an obstacle to federal policy since the FDA announced it intends to ban menthol cigarettes and all flavored cigars.

  • Tobacco Firms Settle Messaging Dispute

    Tobacco Firms Settle Messaging Dispute

    Several tobacco companies have reached an agreement in long-running litigation brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and certain public health organizations regarding the communication of tobacco-related messaging at retail locations.

    The agreement will require Altria, Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and ITG Brands to supply their contracted stores with court-ordered signs that must be posted for 21 months.

    The agreement covers the last remaining dispute from the lawsuit DOJ filed against Altria, Philip Morris USA and R..J Reynolds in the 1990s, according to the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS).

    “This litigation has always put the retailers in a uniquely bad position,” said Doug Kantor, NACS general counsel. “Retailers were not parties to the lawsuit and should not be burdened with a court-ordered remedy, but this negotiated outcome avoids even worse results that DOJ and public health groups were advocating.”

    The agreement provides that each store under contract with one of the manufacturers will have to post at least one sign carrying one of 17 different, pre-approved health messages that will be distributed at random to retailers around the country.

    Each store will be required to rotate to a new message halfway through the time period required in the agreement. The manufacturers will be required to hire auditors to check whether the signs are properly posted. A summary of the agreement explaining the requirements on retailers as well as answers to frequently asked questions about it can be found here.

    A hearing on the proposed agreement will be held in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 28 and 29. The court will then decide whether to accept the agreement and enter an order to implement it.

    The timing of the requirements for signs to be posted will depend on when the court decides whether to accept the agreement.