By Timothy S. Donahue
Top Takeaways:
- A Florida federal judge denied PMI’s motion to dismiss FDUTPA claims related to Zyn’s “tobacco-free” marketing.
- The court determined that the consumer protection claims are separate from the previously dismissed fraud allegations.
- The ruling permits the lawsuit to proceed despite previous fraud claim dismissals.
A federal judge in Florida has denied Philip Morris International’s motion to dismiss claims filed under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, allowing a lawsuit challenging the marketing of ZYN nicotine pouches to proceed.
U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas of the Southern District of Florida ruled on December 12 that the claims filed by plaintiff Kovadis Palmer against Philip Morris International and its subsidiary Swedish Match North America LLC adequately state a cause of action under FDUTPA.
The lawsuit, originally filed in April 2024, claims that the defendants marketed ZYN nicotine pouches as “tobacco-free,” which Palmer states implied a lower risk of addiction. Palmer argues the marketing was deceptive because the nicotine in Zyn products comes from tobacco and alleges that he developed nicotine dependence from using the products.
Palmer initially claimed common-law fraud. However, the court dismissed those claims in rulings issued in August 2024 and March 2025, stating that the allegations did not meet the heightened pleading standards for fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
In October 2025, Palmer amended his complaint again, removing the fraud claims and asserting causes of action under FDUTPA for deceptive or unfair business practices. Philip Morris International and Swedish Match moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the FDUTPA claims were just a rephrasing of the previously dismissed fraud allegations and relied on essentially the same factual assertions.
Dimitrouleas rejected that argument, noting that FDUTPA claims do not rely on allegations of intentional deception and are not governed by Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard. The court clarified that FDUTPA concentrates on whether a deceptive or unfair practice took place, if there is a causal link to the alleged harm, and whether actual damages occurred.
In his ruling, the judge determined that the FDUTPA claim “is not simply fraud under another name, but advances a new legal theory,” and observed that the amended complaint does not allege that the defendants acted with intent to mislead consumers.
The decision permits Palmer’s FDUTPA claims to move forward while maintaining the court’s earlier dismissal of the fraud counts.
