Key Points
- Direct purchasers, indirect purchasers and indirect resellers of JUUL products are asking the Ninth Circuit to preserve class certifications granted in February.
- Altria and JUUL argue that individual consumers and large distributors differ in purchasing volume, pricing, contracts and bargaining arrangements and should not remain in a single direct-purchaser class.
- The indirect-purchaser dispute covers 27 jurisdictions and centers in part on whether purchasers outside California can pursue claims under the state's Cartwright Act.
- Altria disclosures show 17 proposed class actions had been consolidated into the litigation as of July 2026. Plaintiffs seek relief including treble damages.
2Firsts
September 23, 2026
According to Law360 on September 22, direct purchasers, indirect purchasers and indirect resellers of JUUL products filed answering briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week, seeking to preserve class certifications granted in February in private antitrust litigation stemming from Altria Group's former investment in JUUL Labs.
The Ninth Circuit agreed in April to hear Altria and JUUL's interlocutory appeal of the class-certification ruling. A trial that had been scheduled for September has since been put on hold.
The appeal concerns class certification rather than a final determination of whether Altria or JUUL violated antitrust law.
Direct Purchasers Dispute Whether Consumers Can Represent Large Distributors
U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California certified the direct-purchaser class in February and partially granted certification requests for multistate indirect-purchaser and indirect-reseller classes.
The direct-purchaser class generally includes individuals and entities in the United States that purchased relevant e-cigarette products directly from JUUL or related entities beginning on October 5, 2018.
Altria and JUUL argue that the class combines individual consumers purchasing through JUUL's website with large distributors and retailers operating under separately negotiated commercial contracts.
The defendants have cited the record as showing that vape shops and large distributors accounted for about 93% of direct-purchaser volume, while the named plaintiffs are primarily individual consumers.
They argue that differences in scale, pricing, contracts and bargaining arrangements make those consumers inadequate representatives of larger commercial purchasers.
The direct purchasers responded this week that their claims arise from the same alleged anticompetitive arrangement.
They argue that class members share common theories of liability, impact and damages, including the allegation that the defendants' conduct caused purchasers to pay higher prices.
They also contend that individually negotiated distributor agreements do not by themselves create conflicting interests within the class.
27 Jurisdictions at Issue in California Antitrust-Law Dispute
A second major issue involves indirect purchasers and indirect resellers.
Under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1977 decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, indirect purchasers generally cannot recover antitrust damages under federal law.
A number of states later enacted so-called Illinois Brick repealer laws, allowing indirect purchasers to pursue damages under state antitrust laws.
The plaintiffs originally sought to apply California's Cartwright Act to purchasers in 31 repealer jurisdictions.
The district court excluded Arkansas, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia, leaving the current class dispute involving 27 jurisdictions.
Altria and JUUL argue that California law should not govern purchases made outside the state and that the laws of the states where the transactions occurred should apply.
The indirect purchasers and resellers responded that the alleged conduct had substantial connections to California, including JUUL's former headquarters, key negotiations and execution of the relevant agreement.
They also argue that differences among the relevant state laws do not alter the common liability questions because each jurisdiction permits indirect-purchaser antitrust claims.
Seventeen Proposed Class Actions Consolidated Into the Case
Altria's public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission show that 17 proposed class actions had been filed against Altria and JUUL as of July 27, 2026.
The cases were consolidated in the Northern District of California and organized into three main plaintiff groups:
Direct Purchasers, including individuals and businesses that bought products directly from JUUL or related entities;
Indirect Purchasers, including consumers who bought JUUL products through retail channels for personal use;
and Indirect Resellers, including businesses that acquired products from sources other than JUUL for resale.
The plaintiffs seek relief including treble damages, attorneys' fees and other declaratory and equitable remedies.
Class certification determines whether those claims can proceed on behalf of broader groups of purchasers rather than only the named plaintiffs.
Litigation Stems From Altria's $12.8 Billion JUUL Investment
The private litigation traces back to Altria's $12.8 billion investment in JUUL in December 2018, through which it obtained a 35% economic interest in the e-cigarette company.
Around the same period, Altria discontinued products sold by its Nu Mark e-vapor business, including MarkTen and Green Smoke.
The plaintiffs allege that Altria's exit from the closed-system e-cigarette market and subsequent investment in JUUL formed part of an anticompetitive arrangement that reduced competition and caused JUUL product purchasers to pay higher prices.
Those allegations have not been established at a merits trial.
Altria and JUUL deny wrongdoing.
FTC Administrative Case Ended, Private Litigation Continued
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission filed a separate administrative antitrust case over the Altria-JUUL transaction in 2020.
An FTC administrative law judge issued an initial decision in 2022 recommending dismissal of the agency's charges.
In March 2023, Altria transferred its JUUL equity interest back to JUUL.
On June 30, 2023, the FTC vacated the administrative law judge's initial decision and dismissed its administrative complaint in the public interest. The commission also stated that the vacated initial decision could no longer be cited as precedent.
The FTC proceeding therefore ended without a currently operative merits ruling imposing antitrust liability on Altria or JUUL.
The private purchaser litigation continued.
Ninth Circuit Granted Interlocutory Review in April
Altria and JUUL petitioned the Ninth Circuit in March for interlocutory review of the class-certification ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition on April 27, and the appeal proceeded under case No. 26-2626.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, several legal-interest groups and a group of 14 states have filed amicus briefs supporting challenges to portions of the certification ruling.
The 14-state group has opposed applying California law to claims brought by indirect purchasers outside the state.
Altria and JUUL have also characterized the private cases as follow-on litigation to the FTC proceeding and argued that the plaintiffs are seeking substantial damages.
The JUUL product purchasers are asking the Ninth Circuit to preserve the district court's certification ruling.
September Trial Put on Hold
The district court had scheduled remaining claims for trial in September 2026.
After the Ninth Circuit accepted the class-certification appeal, Judge Orrick put the trial on hold while allowing other aspects of the litigation to continue.
Public case information currently shows no new trial date. A new schedule is expected after the Ninth Circuit resolves the appeal.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling will determine whether the JUUL product purchasers can continue litigating through the currently certified classes. Any final determination of Altria and JUUL's antitrust liability remains for later merits proceedings.
The district court case is In re JUUL Labs Inc. Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO. The Ninth Circuit appeal is No. 26-2626.
Follow 2Firsts for timely updates on global tobacco and nicotine industry litigation, corporate developments and regulatory affairs.
Cover Image generated by AI
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.
