California federal judge certifies direct purchaser class in Juul–Altria antitrust litigation

Mar.02
California federal judge certifies direct purchaser class in Juul–Altria antitrust litigation
A California federal judge has certified a class of direct purchasers of Juul products in antitrust litigation alleging Juul and Altria conspired to have Altria exit the e-cigarette market.

Key Takeaways

 

  • U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick certified a class of direct purchasers of Juul products in California federal court
  • The court cited “common, predominant questions” and a strong inference of classwide impact; direct purchasers may opt out
  • Plaintiffs challenge Altria’s 2018 $12.8 billion investment for a 35% stake in Juul, alleging it induced Altria to exit the e-cigarette market and raised prices
  • FTC previously challenged the deal but dropped its case in 2023 after Altria fully unwound its Juul investment
  • Direct purchaser class covers those buying Juul products directly from Oct. 5, 2018, to the present
  • Indirect purchaser and reseller classes were also certified; indirect plaintiffs from four states were excluded

 


 

2Firsts, March 2 2026

 

According to Law360, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick said “common, predominant questions abound” as to whether e-cigarette company Juul and tobacco company Altria schemed to have Altria exit the e-cigarette market. In a Thursday order, he explained he granted class certification to direct purchasers of Juul products, citing a strong inference of classwide impact and the purchasers’ plan for proving impact and damages from the alleged conspiracy.

 

Judge Orrick wrote that common questions predominate regarding whether a conspiracy existed, when it began and ended, whether it impacted the direct purchaser class, and the resulting damages. 

 

He said resolving the claims through a class action is far superior to doing so purchaser by purchaser, while providing an opportunity to opt out.

 

The antitrust litigation centers on Altria’s 2018 investment in Juul — a $12.8 billion deal for a 35% stake — which plaintiffs allege induced Altria to exit the e-cigarette market by shuttering its Nu Mark division. 

 

The suit names Altria, Juul and two Juul board members, alleging reduced product variety and higher prices. The Federal Trade Commission also challenged the agreement but dropped its case in 2023 after Altria fully unwound its investment in Juul.

 

The direct purchaser class covers wholesalers and others who purchased e-cigarette products directly from Juul between Oct. 5, 2018, and the present. Judge Orrick rejected defendants’ arguments that the named purchasers were atypical because class members negotiated separate purchasing contracts involving pricing, rebates and advertising/resale arrangements. He said the named purchasers have claims typical across the class based on alleged overcharges and are adequately incentivized to pursue them.

 

He also said an imperfect understanding of the class does not undermine adequacy so long as representatives have a basic understanding of the claims and their responsibilities.

 

The order references prior certification of classes of direct and indirect purchasers and indirect resellers. The indirect purchaser classes cover purchases of Juul pods (excluding devices or kits containing devices) indirectly for personal use between Oct. 25, 2018, and March 29, 2024, while the indirect reseller classes cover those who purchased Juul pods indirectly for resale between Dec. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2025. 

 

Indirect plaintiffs from Arkansas, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia were excluded on the basis that those states do not allow class actions for the antitrust claims at issue.

 

Image source: Law360

 

We welcome news tips, article submissions, interview requests, or comments on this piece.

Please contact us at info@2firsts.com, or reach out to Alan Zhao, CEO of 2Firsts, on LinkedIn


Notice

1.  This article is intended solely for professional research purposes related to industry, technology, and policy. Any references to brands or products are made purely for objective description and do not constitute any form of endorsement, recommendation, or promotion by 2Firsts.

2.  The use of nicotine-containing products — including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouchand heated tobacco products — carries significant health risks. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.

3.  This article is not intended to serve as the basis for any investment decisions or financial advice. 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any inaccuracies or errors in the content.

4.  Access to this article is strictly prohibited for individuals below the legal age in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright

 

This article is either an original work created by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with proper attribution. All copyrights and usage rights belong to 2Firsts or the original content provider. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other form of unauthorized use by any individual or organization is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally accountable.

For copyright-related inquiries, please contact: info@2firsts.com

 

AI Assistance Disclaimer

 

This article may have been enhanced using AI tools to improve translation and editorial efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, inaccuracies may occur. Readers are encouraged to refer to the cited sources for the most accurate information.

We welcome any corrections or feedback. Please contact us at: info@2firsts.com

Adani’s Mumbai Airport Duty-Free Shops Face Scrutiny Over Nicotine Pouch Sales in India
Adani’s Mumbai Airport Duty-Free Shops Face Scrutiny Over Nicotine Pouch Sales in India
An Indian investigation found that duty-free shops at Mumbai international airport operated by billionaire Gautam Adani’s business group sold nicotine pouches in breach of the law, Reuters reported, in a case that could shape how India regulates sales of new nicotine products at airport retail outlets.
Jul.08
China’s Shanghai Tobacco Group Launches CNY 10.98 Million (Approximately US$1.53 Million) Procurement for Heated Tobacco Production Utility Equipment
China’s Shanghai Tobacco Group Launches CNY 10.98 Million (Approximately US$1.53 Million) Procurement for Heated Tobacco Production Utility Equipment
Shanghai Tobacco Group Co., Ltd., a tobacco manufacturing company under China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC), has launched a public tender for heated tobacco products (HTPs) production utility equipment at its Shanghai Cigarette Factory. The project is valued at CNY 10.98 million and covers six combined air-conditioning units, electrical cabinets and control systems for production facilities. The procurement includes equipment design, supply, installation, commissioning and related training services.
Aug.07
Philippines Weighs Unified Vape Tax as Lawmakers Back Risk-Based Rates and Government Seeks to Fill ₱66 Billion Revenue Gap
Philippines Weighs Unified Vape Tax as Lawmakers Back Risk-Based Rates and Government Seeks to Fill ₱66 Billion Revenue Gap
Philippine lawmakers are considering an overhaul of the country's vape excise-tax regime to eliminate the wide gap between taxes on nicotine salt and freebase nicotine liquids and reduce incentives for misdeclaration. House Bill 5364, filed by Rep. Rufus Rodriguez and Rep. Maximo Rodriguez Jr., would impose a unified ₱10-per-milliliter tax on vapor products, with 5% annual increases beginning in 2027. Rodriguez says the proposal could generate an average ₱6 billion in annual collections from 2027 through 2030. The debate comes as the Philippine government considers tobacco, vape and other health-tax reforms to help offset around ₱66 billion in revenue expected to be forgone under a proposed tax-relief package.
Aug.18
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
According to VitalLaw on August 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated an FDA marketing denial order (MDO) against NicQuid LLC, ruling that the agency’s comparative-efficacy standard for electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) applications had become a substantive rule requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court did not reject FDA’s authority to compare the public health benefits and risks of flavored vapes, but held that the agency could not establish a broadly binding standard through informal adjudications. The case was remanded to FDA for further proceedings.
Aug.28
Russian Strikes Destroy JTI and Imperial Brands Ukraine Warehouses, With Losses Reaching Tens of Millions of Hryvnias
Russian Strikes Destroy JTI and Imperial Brands Ukraine Warehouses, With Losses Reaching Tens of Millions of Hryvnias
According to Ukrainska Pravda, Russian strikes on the Kyiv region during the night of Aug. 4-5, 2026, damaged warehouses storing products of Japan Tobacco International (JTI) and Imperial Brands Ukraine. JTI said a finished goods warehouse in Kyiv Oblast was destroyed, with no employees injured, and that it did not expect disruptions to retail supplies. Imperial Brands Ukraine said products stored at warehouses of distributors and retail partners were affected and estimated losses from the strikes at “tens of millions of Ukrainian hryvnias” (roughly hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars).
JTI
Aug.07
Special Report|South Korean Lawmaker Queries China Tobacco Regulator Over Synthetic Nicotine as Export-Rule Gaps Emerge
Special Report|South Korean Lawmaker Queries China Tobacco Regulator Over Synthetic Nicotine as Export-Rule Gaps Emerge
A South Korean lawmaker has asked China’s tobacco regulator to clarify rules for e-cigarettes containing synthetic nicotine amid questions over product declarations and possible tax losses. The dispute exposes gaps between Chinese export requirements and destination-market rules, while underscoring the global impact of China’s licensing and traceability policies.
Jul.10