Juul executives face trial after US judge rules racketeering claims ‘plausible’

A major lawsuit in California against Juul Labs and Altria over youth marketing tactics is moving forward after a judge endorsed a new racketeering theory as “plausible”.

The plaintiffs – municipal governments and school districts across the US – lost their first round of racketeering claims last October. But William Orrick, US district judge for the Northern District of California, refused to dismiss the latest claims, which also target five current and former Juul executives.

Orrick said the new claims were legally sufficient, based on added allegations about the individual directors’ “numerical control of the board, knowledge about Juul’s youth appeal and the growth of under-age users, significant involvement in marketing decisions, and unusually active roles in management and decisions from which they profited billions of dollars”.

The 30-page order, issued on 13th April, is a blow to Juul and Altria as the companies battle the multi-district litigation. The lawsuits allege a broad conspiracy to create a new generation of nicotine addicts through a marketing plan that specifically targets children and teenagers.

In February, the judge selected six suits to serve as “bellwethers” by going to trial first. That trial is scheduled to begin in February 2022.

 

Individuals in the dock

 

The Juul executives being sued individually are co-founders James Monsees (pictured, left) and Adam Bowen (pictured, right), and directors Riaz Valani, Nicholas Pritzker and Hoyoung Huh. The plaintiffs say all of them were able to “control the resources and instrumentalities” of Juul Labs.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Join in to hear about news, events, and podcasts in the sector

    See more

    Orrick’s order considered that the strengthened racketeering theory included new allegations about the directors, who in November 2014 “discussed and worked on defining a strategy for how to frame and market their product”.

    Assisting Orrick with the case is US magistrate judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, who is managing discovery disputes. She outlined rules for the depositions in a 23rd March ruling, when she also ordered attorneys and witnesses not to vape during questioning.

    “Breaks shall be taken as frequently as necessary to accommodate those parties,” according to Corley’s order. “Those breaks shall not count against the presumptive seven-hour deposition limit.”

    Attorneys working on the case did not respond to ECigIntelligence’s requests for comment.

     

    What This Means: The case against Juul Labs is a sprawling collection of lawsuits from across the US that have been consolidated before Judge Orrick, whose chambers are in Juul’s home town, San Francisco. As of March 2021, the multi-district litigation involving Juul includes approximately 2,004 cases.

    There are 107 defendants, ranging from behemoths Juul, Altria and its previous incarnation Philip Morris USA, plus retailers such as Circle K Stores, Walgreen and Walmart, to local head shops and small vaping entities, but Orrick ruled that only Altria, Juul and the executives can face the racketeering claims.

    – Meghann Cuniff ECigIntelligence US legal correspondent

    Photos: Wikimedia Commons / Juul

    Author default picture

    ECigIntelligence

    This article was written by one of ECigIntelligence’s international correspondents. We currently employ more than 40 reporters around the world to cover individual vaping markets. For a full list, please see our Who We Are page.

    Our Key Benefits

    The global e-cigarette market is in an opaque regulatory environment that requires professionals to be on top of industry developments to make informed decisions and optimise their strategy.

    ECigIntelligence provides organisations with leading market and regulatory data analysis to anticipate and understand market developments globally and the impact of regulatory changes to the business.

    • Stay informed of any legal and market change in the sector that impacts your organisation
    • Maximise resources by getting market and legal data analysis daily in one place
    • Make smart decisions by understanding how the regulatory and market landscape evolves
    • Anticipate risks in your decisions by monitoring regulatory changes that impact your organization