By Timothy S. Donahue
Top Takeaways:
- Appeal moves forward: Altria and Juul Labs are asking the Ninth Circuit to reverse a federal judge’s decision certifying multiple purchaser classes in the long-running antitrust litigation against Juul Labs.
- 2018 deal challenged: Plaintiffs allege that Altria’s 35% investment in Juul Labs and its withdrawal of competing vapor products reduced competition and kept e-cigarette prices artificially high.
- High-stakes ruling: The appellate court’s decision could determine whether the claims proceed as certified class actions before a trial currently scheduled for September.
Altria Group and Juul Labs are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a federal judge’s decision certifying nationwide and multistate purchaser classes in litigation challenging Altria’s 2018 investment in Juul Labs. They argue the ruling improperly groups together consumers and businesses with materially different legal claims.
The appeal arises from multidistrict antitrust litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which purchasers allege that Altria’s acquisition of a 35% stake in Juul Labs—and its simultaneous agreement to discontinue its competing MarkTen e-cigarette business—reduced competition in the U.S. closed-system vapor market. Plaintiffs contend the transaction enabled Juul Labs to maintain higher prices while limiting consumer choice. Altria and Juul Labs deny the allegations.
In February, U.S. District Judge William Orrick certified three classes of plaintiffs, including direct purchasers, indirect purchasers, and indirect resellers, while declining to certify other proposed classes. The ruling allowed broad portions of the case to proceed collectively rather than through thousands of individual lawsuits.
Altria and Juul Labs argue that the certification order improperly combines purchasers from multiple states despite significant differences in state antitrust and consumer protection laws. According to the companies, these variations create individualized legal and factual issues that make class treatment inappropriate and fail to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The companies also contend that the district court’s approach raises due process concerns by applying California law too broadly to transactions occurring elsewhere.
The Ninth Circuit granted the companies permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal in April, an outcome that is relatively uncommon because appellate courts have broad discretion to review class-certification decisions before final judgment. Briefing is now underway, with Altria and Juul Labs seeking reversal before the case goes to trial.
The underlying litigation has evolved significantly since its 2020 filing. Over time, several claims have been narrowed, including the voluntary dismissal of monopolization and California Unfair Competition Law claims in 2025. According to Altria’s most recent SEC filing, the remaining consolidated actions challenge the 2018 transaction under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and various state antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and rescission of the transaction. The trial on the remaining claims is scheduled to begin in September 2026.
