“Defendants’ argument that differences in enhanced damages should suffice to derail California from applying its law is not cognizable under California law,” she added.
Background: A Long-Running E-Cigarette Antitrust Fight
The litigation began in 2020, when consumers alleged Juul and Altria colluded to stifle competition in the e-cigarette market. Plaintiffs claim Altria’s 2018 investment in Juul — later sold off in March 2023 — effectively eliminated competition between the companies and consolidated market control.
The Federal Trade Commission initially challenged the deal but dropped its case after Altria divested its stake. Plaintiffs argue, however, that the companies could recombine in the future, keeping their injunctive claims alive alongside requests for damages.
Judge Orrick previously dismissed the injunction claim as moot following the divestment and has also sent some claims to arbitration.
Representation
Plaintiffs are represented by:
-
Betsy C. Manifold, Kate M. McGuire, and Thomas H. Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
-
Fred T. Isquith Sr., Isquith Law PLLC
-
Merle C. Meyers and Michele Thompson, Meyers Law Group PC
-
Robin F. Zwerling and Justin M. Tarshis, Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP
-
Andrew Dirksen, Cera LLP
-
Elana Katcher, Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP
-
Joseph Saveri, Itak Moradi, Ronnie Seidel Spiegel, and David Seidel, Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP
-
John D. Radice, Radice Law Firm PC
-
Michael Buchman, Motley Rice LLC
Juul Labs Inc. is represented by David I. Gelfand, Jeremy J. Calsyn, and Nowell D. Bamberger of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.
Altria Group Inc. is represented by James M. Rosenthal, Jeremy Scott Barber, and Jennifer Pavelec of Wilkinson Stekloff LLP.
The case is In re Juul Labs Inc. Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-02345, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
