Category: Litigation

  • Amazon to Pay $400,000 to Vermont for Vape Sales

    Amazon to Pay $400,000 to Vermont for Vape Sales

    Credit: Sundry Photography

    Amazon will pay Vermont $400,000 and improve its vetting practices to settle claims that it failed to stop online vendors from selling e-cigarettes, Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark announced Wednesday.

    An investigation by the attorney general’s office found that third-party sellers had been hawking tobacco products, especially vapes, to Vermonters on Amazon over the past few years.

    That practice violates a Vermont law, which prohibits the online sale of tobacco products to anyone other than a licensed dealer. Amazon also prohibits the sale of e-cigarettes, and has a variety of safeguards in place to prevent such sales, according to the settlement, according to media reports.

    But even so, “between July 2019 and September 2024, certain e-cigarettes were purchased from third-party sellers in Amazon’s store and shipped to Vermont consumers,” the settlement reads.

    After being informed of the infractions by Vermont’s attorney general, Amazon made unspecified improvements to its oversight practices, the settlement said.

    In addition to the payment, each year for the next four years Amazon will also create a list of vendors that have sold tobacco products to Vermont — the “Vermont Evasive Seller List” — and provide the list to the attorney general if needed.

  • Taxpayer Group Files Amicus Brief in Triton Case

    Taxpayer Group Files Amicus Brief in Triton Case

    Image: hafakot

    The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Wages and White Lion Investments case, challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of e-cigarettes under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The TPA argues that the FDA’s actions have been arbitrary, capricious and detrimental to public health.

    The brief contends that the TCA’s standard for determining what is “appropriate for the protection of the public health” is unconstitutionally vague, providing insufficient guidance to regulated entities and delegating excessive authority to the FDA. This vagueness has led to unpredictable enforcement, adversely affecting both taxpayers and adults who smoke and are seeking safer alternatives to conventional cigarettes.

    Furthermore, the TPA criticizes the FDA for failing to recognize the significant benefits of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool, as acknowledged by leading health organizations such as Public Health England. According to the TPA, the TCA is clear on the need for the FDA to consider the impact of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation, yet the agency has abjectly failed to undertake this analysis. The TPA highlights the FDA’s stringent regulatory approach and high denial rates for new e-cigarette products, which the group says stifle market diversity and limit consumer choice, particularly harming adults who smoke and who might benefit from less harmful alternatives.

    The TPA also notes the FDA’s disregard for market realities and consumer preferences, particularly the benefits of open-system e-cigarettes that allow for customization and have been shown to be more effective for quitting smoking.

    The TPA urges the Supreme Court to uphold the 5th Circuit’s decision, affirming that the FDA’s regulatory approach under the TCA is arbitrary and capricious and violates due process. The TPA calls for a regulatory framework that adequately considers the benefits of e-cigarettes and gives regulated parties fair notice of how their products will be evaluated.

  • Marlyland Schools Get $2 Million From Juul Labs

    Marlyland Schools Get $2 Million From Juul Labs

    Credit: Andriano CZ

    Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland will receive $2 million to purchase vape detection devices after the Montgomery County Council voted unanimously Tuesday to transmit settlement money from the Juul e-cigarette company to the school system.

    The funding comes from a state grant created after the Juul vape company was ordered to pay $7.5 million to the state for marketing its products to minors, media reports.  

    The settlement included more than 5,000 lawsuits from schools, states, and counties. In 2019, the county joined a state lawsuit against Juul for marketing its products to youth.

    According to MCPS officials, the school system plans to use the funds to install vape detectors in high school bathrooms. The school board voted at its Aug. 20 meeting to move forward with the plan, provided the council approved the funding.

  • Lab Dismisses Lawsuit Against 13 Competitors

    Lab Dismisses Lawsuit Against 13 Competitors

    Credit: Victor Moussa

    Anresco Laboratories and Infinite Chemical Analysis Labs have dropped their lawsuit against 13 competitors. The lawsuit alleged that the competitors manipulated marijuana testing results to gain an unfair advantage.

    According to court documents, the two California-based labs filed a dismissal without prejudice on Aug. 3 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

    Josh Swider, co-founder and CEO of San Diego-headquartered Infinite Chemical Analysis Labs, told MJBizDaily he plans to file a new lawsuit against the defendants.

    “We stand by the allegations and merits in the complaint filed in federal court,” he said.

    “However, with further analysis, and as each of the defendants is aware, we anticipate filing a new complaint very soon.

    “We look forward to providing further comment upon the filing of this new complaint.”

  • Lawsuit Alleges ID for ‘All’ Nicotine Sales Illegal

    Lawsuit Alleges ID for ‘All’ Nicotine Sales Illegal

    Credit: Mehaniq 41

    Many retailers in Oregon have implemented universal ID checks for alcohol or nicotine products. That means they’ll card you — even if you’re 50, 60 or 70 years old. Retailers explain that the point is to eliminate guesswork and make sure kids don’t drink or smoke.

    A pair of class action lawsuits are looking to undo those policies, alleging they violate Oregon law.

    “I understand their reasoning. Trying to protect themselves from selling to underage kids,” said Scott Dale of Molalla, a plaintiff in one of the lawsuits. “But you can’t do that when there are privacy laws in place.”

    Oregon law prohibits swiping a driver’s license except under certain circumstances, including the sale of age-restricted products if there is any reasonable doubt that the person is 21, according to media reports.

    According to Oregon Administrative Rules, reasonable doubt exists if the person appears to be under the age of 26.

    “The law does not allow a business to swipe every driver’s license on every transaction,” said Portland attorney Michael Fuller.

    The law, passed by the Oregon legislature in 2009, was intended to prevent data collection from driver’s licenses and ID cards.

    “The concern is privacy,” said Fuller.

    Plaid Pantry and WSCO Petroleum, which owns Astro gas stations, are both being sued in separate class action lawsuits over their universal card-swiping policies.

    Fuller argued state law is clear, and violations can result in hefty penalties. The law allows an individual to recover actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater. If the violation is intentional, the court can triple damages.

    “The Oregon Legislature made a policy decision and decided that it wasn’t going to allow corporations to scan drivers’ licenses unless there was a reason for it in hopes of reducing the risk of a future data breach,” said Fuller.

    Retailers claim the government encourages the scanning of ID and driver’s licenses to help prevent the sale of alcohol and tobacco to kids.

  • Baltimore Settles Suit With Juul Labs for $7.5 Million

    Baltimore Settles Suit With Juul Labs for $7.5 Million

    Credit: Andriano CZ

    Baltimore, Maryland, Mayor Brandon Scott has announced a lawsuit settlement with Juul Labs. According to the City of Baltimore, the e-cigarette company must pay $7.5 million by the end of 2024 or make three separate payments of $8 million by October 2026.

    The lawsuit was initially filed in 2020 for “deceptive marketing campaigns” aimed towards minors, as well as endangering the health of city residents and costing the city for having to push back against the e-cigarette marketing schemes, as stated by the City of Baltimore, according to media reports.

    “Since taking office, my administration has done everything in our power to invest in Baltimore’s young people to ensure they can reach their full potential. Achieving that aim means focusing on every aspect of their lives – including their health,” said Scott.

    According to the City of Baltimore, the settlement was reached after they declined to participate in a global resolution that would have only recovered $1.9 million for the city.

    “We have and will continue to refuse settlement offers that do not fairly compensate Baltimore City for the harms that the misconduct of these companies brings on us,” said City Solicitor Ebony Thompson.

  •  San Fran Seeks End to Online Flavored Pouch Sales

     San Fran Seeks End to Online Flavored Pouch Sales

    VV Archive

    San Francisco is cracking down on the online sale of flavored nicotine pouches. The new lawsuit targets a handful of online retailers that the city says are violating its prohibition on flavored tobacco products.

    Unflavored versions of the product, which are sold at corner stores and tobacco shops in the city, will remain available for online purchase.

    “The tobacco industry has gone to tremendous lengths to reinvent their products to addict young people,” said City Attorney David Chiu. “We aren’t going to allow these companies to disregard the law and unravel decades of progress on preventing youth from using tobacco.”

    The Standard obtained a draft of the complaint, which was filed Tuesday in San Francisco County Superior Court. The suit alleges that Northerner Scandinavia, Lucy Goods, Rogue Holdings, and Swisher International sell flavored nicotine pouch products online to San Franciscans despite the ban.

    “Tobacco companies market nicotine pouches as discreet — the ‘perfect way to enjoy the nicotine you love without getting noticed, and without the risk of staining your teeth’; and claim that they are smoking cessation devices that help users ‘focus better, think deeper, chill out smoother, and inspire creativity,’” the complaint states.

  • Lawmakers File Amicus Brief in SCOTUS Vape Case

    Lawmakers File Amicus Brief in SCOTUS Vape Case

    supreme court of US
    VV Archives

    A group of congressional lawmakers urged the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn a lower court ruling that blocked federal regulators from rejecting certain e-cigarette products. They argued that the move could hinder government efforts to keep illegal vaping products off store shelves.

    The Supreme Court is set to tackle the FDA’s power to regulate vape sales altogether this term, in FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC. The forthcoming case challenges a January ruling from the Fifth Circuit, which found that the FDA overstepped its authority when it rejected marketing applications from two manufacturers looking to sell flavored liquids for e-cigarettes, according to Courthouse News.

    In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court Monday, the group of legislators — led by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and New Jersey Representative Frank Pallone — argued that the FDA’s decision to reject these marketing applications was “carefully” reasoned.

    “Guided by Congress’ chief directive — to deny such authorization unless a product under review would be ‘appropriate for the protection of the public health’ … FDA has been appropriately mindful of children and teenagers, the most vulnerable pool of non-tobacco users,” the lawmakers wrote.

    They contended that judicial oversight of the agency’s authority had been “generally consistent” until the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and had not impeded it from accomplishing its regulatory responsibilities.

    The legislatures told the high court that allowing the lower court’s ruling to stand would not only force the FDA to waste resources reevaluating the rejected marketing applications but could also invite other manufacturers previously rejected by the FDA to relitigate their own marketing requests.

    “While those applications are once again pending FDA review, the tobacco products they cover would continue to be sold, despite the law’s clear pre-market authorization regime,” the lawmakers said. That provides a “powerful financial incentive” for manufacturers to reapply for FDA approval, even if they know the agency will ultimately deny their applications.

  • Supreme Court Urged to Overturn Triton Ruling

    Supreme Court Urged to Overturn Triton Ruling

    Image: hafakot

    Ten U.S. public health medical and community organizations have filed an amicus brief supporting the Food and Drug Administration in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision forcing the FDA to reconsider several marketing denying orders (MDOs) issued vaping companies.

    In their brief, the groups explain why they believe that allowing the decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, d/b/a Triton Distribution to stand would undermine the FDA’s ability to protect young people from the health harms of flavored e-cigarettes.

    In September 2020, the FDA denied Triton’s applications for approval of a variety of flavored e-liquids for use in e-cigarettes. Triton appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which struck down the FDA’s marketing denial orders. In July, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the FDA’s appeal of that decision.

    According to amici, “E-cigarettes pose unique health risks for youth, as adolescent brains are more susceptible to nicotine’s effects due to ongoing neural development” and “[t]he tobacco industry has long known that flavors are important to its ability to successfully market its products to young people.”

    The groups argue that, contrary to the vaping companies’ protestations, the FDA’s decision to issue MDOs in this case was not arbitrary or capricious, because the applicants did not present evidence that their products would benefit the public health

    The brief cites notes that over 2.1 million U.S. youth, including 10 percent of high schoolers, reported current e-cigarette use in 2023, and nearly 30 percent of high school users reported daily use.

    The brief was submitted by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Medical Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Louisiana State Medical Society, Parents Against Vaping E-cigarettes and the  Truth Initiative.

  • Federal Court Reverses ‘Elf’ Trademark Suit

    Federal Court Reverses ‘Elf’ Trademark Suit

    VV Archives

    A ban on a Chinese company selling “Elf Bar” vapes can’t stand because a district court failed to analyze whether the rightsholder’s use of “Elf” on an illegal product negated its trademark rights, the Federal Circuit court stated Wednesday.

    “Elf Bar” seller Shenzhen Weiboli Technology Co. Ltd. argued the “unlawful use doctrine” precluded a preliminary injunction as plaintiff VPR Brands LP failed to clear its “new tobacco product” with the government as required under federal law, according to media reports.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals stated in its opinion that the district court wrongly dismissed the defense without considering the propriety of the doctrine, a proper standard, or Weiboli’s evidence.

    The Federal Circuit ruled that the district judge who ordered the injunction “misread” precedent and relied on a “deficient” legal analysis.

    A U.S. federal judge on Feb. 23 ordered Shenzhen Weiboli Technology to stop marketing its Elfbar e-cigarettes in the U.S., finding that VPR Brands, which makes and sells Elf brand vapes, is likely to succeed on its claims that the Elfbar vapes infringe its trademark, reports Law360.

    According to U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, VPR has shown there is a likelihood of confusion and the company stands to suffer harm if its Chinese competitor is allowed to keep selling the Elfbar vapes.

    In November, VPR asked for an injunction blocking Shenzhen Weiboli from continuing to use the Elfbar mark, arguing the alleged infringement is costing VPR about $100 million because of the effect on future sales.

    VPR claims Shenzhen Weiboli is not only infringing VPR’s Elf trademark but also its patent for its e-cigarette device.