E-Cigarette Maker Juul Sued for Allegedly Targeting Young Users
The complaint alleges the e-cigarette company and Altria Group knowingly withheld information from consumers, specifically teenage users, about the addictive nature of Juuls.
April 15, 2019 at 05:22 PM
4 minute read
A federal class action suit has accused electronic-cigarette manufacturer Juul Labs Inc. of illegally underplaying the dangers of its product to expand its appeal among underage users.
The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida and names Juul as a defendant alongside its parent company Altria Group Inc. and Philip Morris USA Inc., a separate subsidiary under the Altria umbrella. The complaint was brought by the parents of a 15 year-old Sarasota girl, who purportedly became addicted to nicotine through Juul usage. The plaintiffs list seven causes for action against the defendants, including fraud and deceptive trade practices.
Media representatives with JUUL and Altria did not respond to emailed and telephoned requests for comment by press time.
Jonathan Gdanski, an attorney with Fort Lauderdale law firm Schlesinger Law Offices, is representing the plaintiffs. The lawyer said his clients filed their suit as a putative class action on behalf other children and parents facing similar circumstances. He cites a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistic showing nearly 5 million middle and high school students were current users of a tobacco product in 2018. Gdanski claims that number has grown in recent years, in large part due to the proliferation of Juuls among younger consumers, “creating an entire new generation of nicotine addiction” in the process.
“It really is tragic,” Gdanski said. ”For decades the public health community worked against the powerful tobacco industry to reduce youth smoking. … That entire trend is now being reversed. … For the first time in decades youth smoking of regular combustive cigarettes are up.”
Gdanski attributed the rise to the differences in marketing for e-cigarettes and adult tobacco users. Whereas Juul ad campaigns encourage adults to begin vaping as a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, the company's marketing allegedly serve to introduce nicotine to young people through an entirely new avenue.
“What [tobacco companies] are doing is reintroducing an entire epidemic of youth nicotine addiction to this generation,” Gdanski said. “What we had hoped was on its way out is on its way back in, … and it's because the manufacturers of nicotine addiction hadn't left.”
Read the class action lawsuit:
Altria purchased Juul with a 35% stake in the company in December— a move Gdanski described as a maneuver by the company to “reposition itself as the leader in youth nicotine addiction.”
The fraud charge outlined in the complaint alleges the defendants “deceptively sold or partnered to sell Juul products to plaintiffs as non-addictive nicotine delivery systems, or less addictive nicotine products than cigarettes, when defendants knew it to be untrue.”
The suit also alleges the companies are liable for failure to warn about nicotine addiction from Juuls.
“Defendant Juul has intentionally downplayed, misrepresented, concealed, and failed to warn of heightened risks of nicotine exposure and addiction,” the suit said. “Since the Altria Defendants partnered with Juul, they too intentionally downplayed, misrepresented, concealed, and failed to warn of the heightened risks of nicotine exposure and addiction.”
The potential class outlined in the complaint would include all people in the U.S. who've purchased Juul products, as well as the legal guardians of Juul users under 18.
Gdanski compared electronic cigarettes to Big Tobacco, which has been subject to multimillion-dollar verdicts for misleading customers about the dangers associated with smoking.
“I know people will say e-cigarettes may be safer than combustible cigarettes,” he said. ”The benchmark is being safer than the deadliest product ever created. Do we want people using the product for 20, 30 years, …. only to learn what the true dangers are?”
Related stories:
Lawsuit Claims E-cigarette Exploded, Burned Naples Man's Throat, Lungs
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250