Key Takeaways
- Altria and Juul filed a motion Monday seeking to pause the case pending appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit granted interlocutory review of the class certification ruling.
- The case challenges Altria’s 2018 $12.8 billion investment for a 35% stake in Juul.
- The February ruling certified direct purchaser and several indirect purchaser classes.
- Direct purchaser attorney Joseph R. Saveri said they plan to oppose the stay request and noted the case has been pending for more than six years.
2Firsts, May 7, 2026
According to Law360, Altria and Juul are asking a California federal court to pause an antitrust case while they appeal a class certification ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The case alleges that the companies schemed to have Altria exit the e-cigarette market.
Defendants requested a stay of the case
Altria and Juul filed a motion Monday seeking a stay pending appeal. The filing came after the Ninth Circuit granted their request for interlocutory review of a ruling that certified several classes of direct and indirect purchasers who allegedly overpaid for Juul products.
Motion said the appeal raises serious legal questions
The motion said that when a court of appeals grants a petition for immediate review, it is a clear sign that serious legal questions are at issue. The defendants said the appellate court’s resolution may meaningfully reshape the contours of the classes, making a stay more sensible than continuing litigation amid uncertainty.
Defendants asked the court to vacate the current trial date
The motion requested that the court vacate the current trial date and stay all other case deadlines. Joseph R. Saveri of the Saveri Law Firm LLP, an attorney for the direct purchasers, told Law360 on Wednesday that they plan to oppose the stay request and said the case has been pending for more than six years.
Appeal concerns out-of-state indirect purchasers and online buyer representation
The motion said the appeal asks whether California law can apply to claims of indirect purchasers from other states and whether online buyers can represent claims of large commercial distributors. The motion said the appeal deals with what laws should apply and who should be included in the classes.
Both sides agree the September trial date must be removed
According to the motion, both sides agree that the currently scheduled September trial date will have to be struck, but they disagree over whether the court should set a new date now and keep the litigation moving.
Buyers proposed a June 2027 trial date
The buyers proposed that the court reschedule trial for June 1, 2027, and proceed with an August hearing on motions involving arbitration and forum-selection defenses. Altria and Juul said neither position is workable.
The motion said there is no reason to expect the Ninth Circuit to rule on the appeal in time for a June 2027 trial because the appellate process usually takes many months, if not a year or more.
Defendants said arbitration and forum-selection issues are premature
The motion also argued that it is premature for the court to consider arbitration and forum-selection clause issues until the appeals court decides who is properly included in the direct purchaser class and whether the named representatives can properly represent their interests.
Motion said the appeal may make some disputes unnecessary
The motion said the Ninth Circuit may determine that distributors are not properly included in the direct purchaser class, which would moot the need to litigate the application of those distributors’ arbitration and forum-selection clauses.
The defendants said granting a stay would save the parties and the court from spending time and resources on issues that may never need to be decided.
The case targets Altria’s 2018 investment in Juul
The case targets Altria’s 2018 investment in Juul, a $12.8 billion transaction for a 35% stake. The buyers allege the deal induced Altria to exit the e-cigarette market by shutting down its Nu Mark division.
FTC challenged the agreement and dropped its case in 2023
The Federal Trade Commission also challenged the agreement but dropped its case in 2023 after Altria fully unwound its investment in Juul.
Buyers allege reduced product variety and higher prices
The buyers’ case names Altria, Juul and two Juul board members. It alleges that the investment led to reduced product variety in the market and higher prices.
Court certified several buyer classes in February
U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick issued the class certification ruling in February. The order certified a class of direct purchasers covering wholesalers and others that purchased e-cigarette products directly from Juul between Oct. 5, 2018 and the present.
Indirect purchaser classes cover Juul pod purchases
The court also certified several indirect purchaser classes covering purchases of Juul pods, excluding devices, for personal use between Oct. 25, 2018 and March 29, 2024.
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
