By Timothy S. Donahue
Top Takeaways:
Appeal underway: Altria and Juul seek to pause class-action antitrust litigation
Class dispute: Ninth Circuit reviewing scope of certified purchaser classes
Deal scrutiny: Case centers on Altria’s 2018 investment in Juul
The long-running legal fallout from Altria Group’s investment in Juul Labs is headed back into procedural limbo. The companies are asking a federal court in California to pause an antitrust class action while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviews whether several classes of JUUL purchasers were properly certified.
The motion, filed Monday, follows the Ninth Circuit’s decision to grant interlocutory review of William H. Orrick’s February class-certification ruling. According to the filing, Altria and Juul argue that the appeal raises “serious legal questions” that could significantly alter the litigation’s structure.
“And because the appellate court’s resolution of those legal questions may meaningfully reshape the contours of the classes, a stay of the district court deadlines pending the appellate court’s decision is more sensible than requiring the parties to continue to litigate the case in the face of that uncertainty,” the motion states.
The defendants asked the court to vacate the current trial date and to stay all remaining deadlines. The underlying case alleges that Altria’s 2018 $12.8 billion investment for a 35% stake in Juul Labs effectively removed Altria as a competitor in the vapor market by shutting down its Nu Mark e-cigarette division.
Purchasers claim the deal reduced competition, limited product variety, and contributed to higher prices for JUUL products. The litigation includes both direct purchaser classes—such as wholesalers—and indirect purchaser classes tied to personal-use purchases of Juul pods.
According to the motion, the appeal focuses in part on whether California law can apply to claims brought by indirect purchasers outside the state and on whether online purchasers can represent claims involving large commercial distributors. The defendants also argued that litigation concerning arbitration clauses and forum-selection provisions should not proceed until the Ninth Circuit determines who is properly included in the certified classes.
“The Ninth Circuit may determine that distributors are not properly included in the direct purchaser class,” the motion states, arguing that such a ruling could eliminate the need to litigate related arbitration disputes entirely.
Both sides reportedly agree that the current September trial date must be removed, though plaintiffs want the case to continue moving toward a proposed June 2027 trial. The plaintiffs intend to oppose the stay request and have noted that the litigation has been pending for more than six years.
The case adds another chapter to the legal and regulatory fallout surrounding Altria’s now-unwound investment in Juul, which also drew scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission before the agency dropped its challenge in 2023, after Altria exited the investment.
