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:
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
© 2024 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 All'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Families Settle Court Battle Over Who Owns Parkland Killer's Name, Likeness
4 minute readCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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