August 2026: JUUL Labs and Altria Appeal B.C. Court Decision Certifying Mass Class Action
JUUL Labs and Altria Group have launched a formal appeal against a British Columbia court decision that certified a nationwide class-action lawsuit accusing the companies of deceptively marketing vaping products to Canadian consumers. The companies filed notice in the B.C. Court of Appeal seeking to overturn a decision by the B.C. Supreme Court. That ruling granted class certification to a suit alleging that JUUL and Altria engaged in deceptive marketing practices, negligence, and breaches of consumer protection legislation by presenting e-cigarettes as a safe smoking alternative while using tactics that appealed directly to youth.
Class certification is a procedural mechanism allowing common claims to proceed collectively on behalf of affected consumers, rather than a final determination of liability or fault. An earlier attempt by the manufacturers to challenge the certification process was dismissed by the appellate court as premature before the lower court had finalized its ruling.
The litigation centers on allegations that JUUL’s formulation of high-potency nicotine salts, sleek device designs, and youth-friendly flavors fueled widespread nicotine addiction among non-smokers and teenagers after e-cigarettes were legalized in Canada in 2018.
Public health advocates have criticized the appeal. Representatives from the Canadian Cancer Society characterized the legal challenge as part of a long-standing industry strategy to delay trials, push back potential financial liabilities, and avoid accountability for marketing practices that have served as a gateway to nicotine addiction for young people.
The appeal comes as JUUL faces mounting legal pressure across the region. In addition to the consumer class action, the British Columbia government is pursuing separate litigation under the province’s Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act to recoup public healthcare expenses linked to e-cigarette use and youth addiction.
July 2026: B.C. Court Certifies Nationwide Class Action Against JUUL and Altria in Canada Over Deceptive Marketing Claims
A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has certified a nationwide class-action lawsuit against JUUL Labs and Altria Group, clearing the way for a massive legal battle over how the companies marketed their vaping products to Canadian consumers. In a decision published on July 16, 2026, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the multi-year litigation can proceed as a class action. The lawsuit will represent all Canadian residents who have used JUUL products since 2018, with the exception of company employees and their families. The lawsuit alleges that the companies deceptively marketed e-cigarettes as a safe alternative to traditional cigarettes and “conspired together to addict a new generation to nicotine.”
Throughout the proceedings, Altria Group attempted to extricate itself from the lawsuit. Altria argued that it had no direct involvement in JUUL’s day-to-day Canadian operations and acted solely as an indirect investor. Altria’s connection to the legal fight stems from its historical investment in JUUL. In 2018, Altria acquired a 35% stake in the e-cigarette company for $12.8 billion. Although Altria has since completely divested from JUUL – swapping its minority stake in 2023 for certain intellectual property rights – the court ruled that its past financial backing and ties to JUUL during the peak of its marketing push remain legally relevant. The Court rejected Altria’s arguments to be excluded from the class action, noting that the court’s jurisdiction and Altria’s involvement had already been established in earlier stages of the litigation, calling the company’s defense another attempt to “relitigate” the matter.
The certification marks a significant milestone in what has been a highly contentious, six-year legal dispute. The proceedings have been marked by intense corporate pushback. In 2025, the Court issued a sprawling, 115-page judgment indicating that the plaintiffs had met most of the requirements for class certification but adjourned the decision to allow them to clarify specific subclasses of consumers. JUUL and Altria attempted to appeal that initial decision and even filed a motion to have the presiding judge recuse himself from the case, claiming he had not properly weighed their arguments.
After those efforts were dismissed, the companies challenged the plaintiffs’ newly amended certification claim. JUUL argued that the plaintiffs failed to properly categorize subclasses of users – such as those who dual-use traditional tobacco and e-cigarettes. The Court dismissed JUUL’s objections, ruling that subclasses could easily be defined later as the litigation advances.
The newly certified class action represents only part of JUUL’s legal headache in British Columbia. Late last year, the B.C. government filed a separate, sweeping lawsuit against JUUL aiming to recover provincial healthcare costs associated with vaping-related illnesses. That government-backed lawsuit mirrors the province’s aggressive legal strategies against opioid and tobacco manufacturers, the latter of which yielded a landmark $3.6-billion settlement in early 2025.
While the B.C. Supreme Court’s certification does not represent a final verdict on fault or liability, it consolidates thousands of individual claims into a single, high-stakes legal proceeding. Both JUUL and Altria are widely expected to appeal the certification order, setting up the next phase of a high-profile showdown in the B.C. Court of Appeal.
June 2026: Italy Fines Philip Morris International Over “Smoke-Free” Marketing Claims
Italy’s competition authority has fined Philip Morris International (PMI) €7 million for allegedly misleading advertising related to its heated tobacco and other next-generation nicotine products. The regulator found that expressions and claims such as “smoke-free,” “smoke-free products,” and references to “building, planning, or accelerating a smoke-free future” may mislead consumers, including minors, into believing the products are harmless and/or less harmful than other tobacco products, particularly traditional cigarettes. The authority argued that the evidence indicates current scientific and clinical knowledge does not support claims that these products are less harmful or harmless, not least because of the presence of nicotine.
The investigation was launched following an October 2025 complaint from Italy’s Ministry of Health and focused on the company’s broader marketing of heated tobacco and e-vapor products. PMI said it will appeal the decision, maintaining that its communications comply with Italian and EU regulations and that the terminology refers to the absence of combustion rather than an absence of risk. The case highlights ongoing regulatory scrutiny in Europe over how tobacco companies position “reduced-risk” or smoke-free alternatives in their marketing.
January 2026: Korean Appeal Court Rejects Health Insurer’s Tobacco Damages Claim
South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) has lost its appeal in a long-running lawsuit against major tobacco companies, seeking about ₩53.3 billion in damages for smoking-related healthcare costs. The Seoul High Court upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the claim against KT&G, Philip Morris Korea, and BAT Korea, concluding that the insurer could not hold tobacco manufacturers financially liable for cancer treatment costs covered under the national health insurance system.
The court’s decision rested on several key legal grounds. First, it found that the NHIS does not qualify as a direct victim of alleged wrongdoing, as it provides insurance benefits under a statutory obligation rather than suffering damage in its own right. Second, the court ruled that the causal link between smoking specific cigarettes produced by the defendants and the individual cancer cases cited by the NHIS could not be legally established to the required standard, given multiple contributing risk factors and individual smoking histories. Third, the court held that tobacco products themselves are not illegal, and that manufacturers had already complied with regulatory requirements, including health warnings, making it difficult to establish unlawful conduct or negligence under current law.
The NHIS had argued that scientific evidence clearly demonstrates the link between smoking and certain cancers and that tobacco companies should bear responsibility for the resulting public healthcare costs. However, the court maintained that scientific probability does not automatically translate into legal liability in individual damage claims. The NHIS expressed strong disappointment with the ruling and has indicated it will pursue a further appeal to the Supreme Court, keeping the case alive more than a decade after it was first filed in 2014.
December 2025: British Columbia (Canada) Launches Civil Action Against JUUL Labs Over Youth Vaping Harms
British Columbia (B.C.) filed a notice of civil claim in the B.C. Supreme Court against JUUL Labs, the San Francisco-based e-cigarette manufacturer, asserting that the company’s marketing and product design significantly contributed to a youth vaping epidemic and resultant public health costs. Under the recently enacted Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (VPRA), the provincial government alleges that JUUL engaged in deceptive practices by designing products with highly addictive nicotine salts and youth-friendly flavours and targeting younger demographics to maximise profits at the expense of public health. The claim seeks to recover costs incurred by the public health system in addressing the consequences of increased nicotine addiction among youth and non-smokers, framing JUUL’s conduct as a public harm that warrants accountability.
The lawsuit represents British Columbia’s first legal action under the new vaping-specific legislation but signals potential further litigation against other manufacturers and wholesalers implicated in the province’s “vaping-related health crisis”. B.C. Attorney General positioned the claim within the government’s broader efforts to hold corporations responsible for health harms, referencing prior actions against tobacco and opioid companies. By invoking the VPRA, B.C. aims to establish a legal precedent for recovering healthcare costs tied to vaping products and to deter practices that prioritise profit over community well-being.
July 2025: British American Tobacco (BAT) challenges the Polish seizures
Over 200,000 vape pods imported to Poland by British American Tobacco (BAT) were seized by the Customs and Tax Office in March 2025. The products were intended to be legally marketed in Poland before the new, higher excise tax rates came into effect on July 1, 2025. In June 2025, Police reported that there were no grounds for filing a motion for punishment with the District Court; meanwhile, the goods remained seized and could not be sold at the old, lower excise tax rate.
National Revenue Administration claimed that its actions were in line with procedures. BAT argues that the law may have been abused and the detention of the goods took place without an appropriate legal basis. BAT also claims that the entire action violated constitutional standards and could cause financial liability (due to “deliberate delaying”) to the State Treasury.
The conflict remains open and BAT could become the first company to sue the State Treasury for commercial expropriation without an administrative decision.
May 2025: The final hearing in the high-stake South Korean tobacco lawsuit approaches
In 2014, South Korean National Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (NHIS) filed a lawsuit for ₩53.3 billion (US$ 39 million) in damages against three companies: KT&G, Philip Morris Korea, and BAT Korea. The aim was to have the tobacco companies cover the medical expenses paid to 3,465 patients who developed lung cancer or laryngeal cancer after smoking for more than 20 pack-years and 30 years. The “National Health Insurance Corporation vs. Tobacco Companies” lawsuit has been ongoing since 2014.
In the first trial in 2020, the Court ruled in favor of the tobacco companies, stating that “there are other causes of disease besides smoking, and there is insufficient evidence that the tobacco companies concealed the addictiveness and harmfulness.” The National Health Insurance Service appealed, and after a legal battle of more than five years, the final appeal hearing will be held at the Seoul High Court on May 22, 2025. Ahead of the appeal trial, medical and civic groups, cancer-related academic societies, and senior and nursing homes have joined forces to support the National Health Insurance Service’s legal response. In a public opinion poll, 6 out of 10 people responded that “tobacco companies should cover the medical costs of smoking-related diseases.”
The core issues at stake in the appeal trial are the direct causal relationship between smoking and diseases such as lung cancer, whether there was intentional concealment or deception by tobacco companies and the balance between individual free will and corporate responsibility. The first trial court did not recognize the responsibility of the tobacco companies and decided that “there are various factors other than smoking, such as genetics and the environment.” On the other hand, the NHIS and the medical community countered, stating that “international organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), and large-scale domestic studies have proven that smoking is the cause of 85% of lung cancer and 90% of laryngeal cancer.” In Korea, there is a legal precedent from 2014 when the Supreme Court dismissed a smoker’s claim for damages, stating that “smoking damages are personal responsibility.” If the NHIS wins the appeal, tobacco companies are likely to face large-scale damages and strong regulations on product marketing, advertising, and pricing policies. On the other hand, if NHIS loses, the burden of smoking-related losses in health insurance finances could be passed on entirely to the public. The ruling is expected at the end of August 2025 at the earliest.
According to the Financial Supervisory Service’s electronic disclosure system, KT&G, Philip Morris Korea, and BAT Korea’s cumulative sales amounted to ₩33.7 trillion (US$24.5 billion) and operating profit amounted to ₩7.14 trillion (US$5.2 billion) from 2019 to 2023. A pack of 20-cigarettes cost ₩4,500 (US$3.3) in South Korea on average, including a tax burden of about ₩3,330 (73%). Tobacco companies make a profit of ₩800-900 (around ¢0.60) per pack.
January 2024: European Commission is within rights to ban flavoured heated tobacco products
British American Tobacco (BAT)’s Irish affliate, PJ Carroll, received an adverse opinion from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding a legal challenge over heated tobacco products (HTP). Advocate General of the ECJ determined that the European Commission was within its rights in banning flavoured HTPs under the 2014 EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). In 2022, the European Commission updated the 2014 EU TPD to prohibit the sale of flavoured HTPs in the European Union.
In 2023, Ireland transposed the delegated directive into Irish law. Two BAT affliates, PJ Carroll and Nicoventures, sued the Minister for Health and the Attorney General in the High Court based on the claim that the European Commission had exceeded its powers. PJ Carroll argued that the basis on which the Commission had updated the Directive to include flavoured HTPs (i.e. a significant change of circumstances) was invalid. The case was referred to the European Court of Justice.
According to a statement by the ECJ, EU TPD empowers the Commission to extend the scope of Article 7 (characterising flavour ban) and Article 11 (mandatory labelling requirements) to new product categories if the Commission can demonstrate a substantial change of circumstances. Under the Directive, this is defined as “significant increases in sales or youth consumption across multiple member states”, provided the product category exceeds 2.5% of total tobacco sales at the EU level.
ECJ stated that the Commission was correct in assessing that there was a “substantial change in circumstances” for heated tobacco products based on units sold, rather than weight. PJ Carroll argued that using weight would be a better measure of quantity of tobacco involved, as opposed to units (note: the amount of tobacco in heated tobacco sticks is around the half of the amount in cigarettes).
November 2024: A Dutch court rules that the state was allowed to ban flavored e-cigarettes
Netherlands banned non-tobacco flavors in e-cigarettes in 2020 based on the premise that sweet-tasting e-cigarettes are popular among the youth and could serve as a gateway to smoking. In a subsequent substantive procedure initiated by Nicoventures and, its parent company, British American Tobacco (BAT), a court in The Hague ruled that the Dutch state was allowed to introduce a ban on flavors in e-cigarettes to protect public health1.
The plaintiffs claimed that there was no evidence to suggest that the ban on flavors is good for public health and the ban could have an adverse effect as fewer smokers will stop trying to quit smoking with the aid of e-cigarettes. The Court stated that the harmfulness of e-cigarettes and the attractiveness of sweet flavors among the youth are sufficiently established facts that justify a ban. According to the Court, any encouragement to smoking does not need to be scientifically proven for a ban and the plaintiffs’ possible disadvantage claim (i.e. less smokers quitting) does not carry enough weight,.
Moreover, plaintiffs claimed that the ban was a violation of free traffic of goods within the European Union. The Court acknowledges that the ban on flavors infringes on the free movement of goods, but says that such an infringement is permitted to protect public health if it is appropriate, necessary, and proportionate.
The Dutch Government aims for a “smoke-free generation” in 2040 and sees the e-cigarette flavor ban as an important intervention to eliminate a potential threat towards this goal.
