Juul Labs to Pay Nearly $440 Million Settlement.

Sep.07.2022
Juul Labs to Pay Nearly $440 Million Settlement.
Juul Labs agrees to pay nearly $440 million to settle investigations into its marketing practices in 33 states.

Electronic cigarette manufacturer Juul Labs has agreed to pay nearly $440 million to settle a two-year investigation by 33 states into its marketing of high-nicotine e-cigarette products. These products have long been accused of being the main driver behind the surge in youth e-cigarette use nationwide.


Connecticut Attorney General William Tong announced the deal on Tuesday, on behalf of several states and Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico had joined forces in 2020 to investigate Juul's early promotional activities and claimed the safety and benefits of its technology as a smoking alternative.


The settlement has resolved one of the biggest legal threats facing the struggling company, however, it still faces nine separate lawsuits from other states. Additionally, Juul is also facing hundreds of individual lawsuits brought by teenagers and others who claim to have become addicted to the company's e-cigarette products.


According to a statement, a national investigation has found that Juul marketed its e-cigarettes to underage minors through parties, product giveaways, advertisements, and social media posts featuring young models.


Through this settlement, we have acquired hundreds of millions of dollars to aid in reducing nicotine use, and have compelled Juul to accept a series of strict prohibitory clauses aimed at ending their adolescent marketing tactics and combating underage sales," said Juul spokesperson Tong in a press release.


A sum of $438.5 million will be paid within a period of 6 to 10 years. Tong stated that at least $16 million paid by the state of Connecticut will be used for prevention and education efforts. Prior to this settlement, Juul had resolved lawsuits in Arizona, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Washington.


Most of the restrictions imposed by the settlement on Tuesday will not affect Juul's practices. Juul stopped using parties, giveaways, and other promotional activities a few years ago after being scrutinized.


Since its launch in 2015, the use of e-cigarettes by teenagers has surged, leading to the US Food and Drug Administration declaring a "epidemic" of underage e-cigarette use among youths. Health experts warn that this unprecedented growth could result in a generation of young people becoming addicted to nicotine.


Since 2019, Juul has mostly been in retreat, abandoning all US advertising and removing its fruit and candy flavors from store shelves.


The biggest blow occurred earlier this summer, when the FDA began banning all Juul e-cigarettes from entering the market. Juul challenged this decision in court, prompting the FDA to resume its scientific review of the company's technology.


The FDA's review is part of a comprehensive examination of the multi-billion-dollar electronic cigarette industry by regulatory authorities, following years of regulatory delays. The agency has authorized some electronic cigarettes for adult smokers who are looking for less harmful alternatives.


Although Juul initially focused on marketing to young urban consumers, the company has since shifted towards positioning its product as an alternative source of nicotine for older smokers.


The company stated that they will continue to focus on their future as they fulfill their mission to prevent the leading cause of preventable deaths among adult smokers, while also combating underage usage.


As part of a settlement agreement, Juul has agreed to avoid a series of marketing practices. These include not using cartoon characters, paying social media influencers, depicting individuals under the age of 35, advertising on billboards and public transportation, and advertising through any channel unless 85% of the audience is adults.


The deal also includes restrictions on the placement of Juul products in stores, age verification for all sales, and limitations on online and retail sales.


Statement


This article is compiled from third-party information and is intended for industry exchange and learning purposes only.


This article does not represent the viewpoint of 2FIRSTS, and 2FIRSTS cannot confirm the truthfulness or accuracy of the content. The translation of this article is only intended for industry-related research and communication.


Due to limitations in translation proficiency, the compiled article may not fully convey the same meaning as the original. Please refer to the original article for accuracy.


2FIRSTS maintains full alignment with the Chinese government on any domestic, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and foreign-related statements and positions.


The copyright of compiled information belongs to the original media and authors. If there is any infringement, please contact us for immediate removal.



Disclaimer

This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.

Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.

The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.

This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright Notice

This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.

No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.

For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.

 

AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice

Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.

Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.

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
JUUL Purchasers Ask Ninth Circuit to Preserve Antitrust Classes in Case Over Altria’s $12.8 Billion Investment
JUUL Purchasers Ask Ninth Circuit to Preserve Antitrust Classes in Case Over Altria’s $12.8 Billion Investment
Private antitrust litigation stemming from Altria's 2018 $12.8 billion investment for a 35% economic interest in JUUL is advancing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Direct purchasers, indirect purchasers and indirect resellers of JUUL products filed answering briefs this week seeking to preserve class certifications granted by a California federal court in February. Altria and JUUL argue that individual consumers and large distributors differ too much in purchasing terms to remain in a single direct-purchaser class, while a separate dispute concerns whether California antitrust law can apply to indirect purchasers across 27 jurisdictions. A September trial has been put on hold during the appeal.
Sep.23
2Firsts Exclusive Analysis | RLX Q2 Revenue Rises 14.8%, Company Takes Control of Western European Distributor and Expands Multi-Category Strategy
2Firsts Exclusive Analysis | RLX Q2 Revenue Rises 14.8%, Company Takes Control of Western European Distributor and Expands Multi-Category Strategy
business accounting for 68.5% of sales. A new controlling investment in a Western European distributor and plans to scale modern oral nicotine pouches point to a broader international strategy spanning channels and multiple product categories.
Special Report
Aug.14
From Nicotine Salts to Cocrystals: China’s Shenzhen Huabao institute explores a more stable form for sustained nicotine release
From Nicotine Salts to Cocrystals: China’s Shenzhen Huabao institute explores a more stable form for sustained nicotine release
China-based Shenzhen Huabao Collaborative Innovation Technology Research Institute Co., Ltd. has filed a patent application for a nicotine-ascorbic acid cocrystal, exploring a new solid-state form of nicotine. The patent proposes applications across e-liquids, heated tobacco sticks, oral tobacco, chewing tobacco and snuff. In nicotine pouch tests disclosed in the filing, cocrystal formulations showed less than a 6% decline in nicotine content after three months of accelerated storage and a release profile combining early-stage release with sustained delivery over 60 minutes. The filing reflects exploration of nicotine forms beyond conventional nicotine base and nicotine salts.
Aug.13
JAMA Issues First U.S. Clinical Guidance on Vaping for Smoking Cessation, Urging Complete Switch From Cigarettes
JAMA Issues First U.S. Clinical Guidance on Vaping for Smoking Cessation, Urging Complete Switch From Cigarettes
JAMA has published a Special Communication offering systematic recommendations for U.S.-based clinicians on the use of nicotine e-cigarettes in adult smoking cessation. Developed by the Harm Reduction Workgroup of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco’s Treatment Research Network, the paper recommends including e-cigarettes alongside FDA-approved cessation medications in risk-benefit discussions. It cites high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes achieve higher quit rates than nicotine replacement therapy and evidence suggesting efficacy comparable to highly effective medications such as varenicline and cytisine. For adults who choose vaping to quit, the authors recommend FDA-authorized products, sufficient nicotine delivery and a rapid, complete transition away from cigarettes rather than prolonged dual use.
Aug.13
Smoore Seeks to Toss CCELL Price-Fixing Claim as Court Weighs Vertical Distribution Versus Horizontal Conspiracy
Smoore Seeks to Toss CCELL Price-Fixing Claim as Court Weighs Vertical Distribution Versus Horizontal Conspiracy
Smoore and four authorized U.S. CCELL distributors are asking a California federal court to permanently dismiss a core antitrust claim brought by direct purchasers. Plaintiffs allege that Smoore coordinated minimum wholesale prices, customer allocation and limits on price competition among distributors, amounting to a per se unlawful horizontal conspiracy. The defendants say the alleged conduct reflects ordinary vertical relationships between a manufacturer and its distributors. The court previously dismissed a similar claim, and the latest dispute centers on whether the second amended complaint adds sufficient facts to establish a horizontal agreement.
Sep.14