A PYMNTS Company

Altria, Juul Seek Pause in Antitrust Case as Class Certification Appeal Moves Forward

By  |  May 7, 2026
court gavel

Altria and Juul have asked a California federal court to temporarily halt ongoing antitrust litigation while they pursue an appeal of a class certification ruling, according to Law360. The companies filed their motion earlier this week after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed to review a February order that certified multiple classes of purchasers alleging they paid inflated prices for Juul products.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    Subscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    In their filing, the defendants argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision to grant interlocutory review signals that significant legal issues are at stake. According to Law360, Altria and Juul said the appellate ruling could substantially alter the scope of the certified classes, making it inefficient to continue with trial preparations while those issues remain unresolved.

    The companies also asked the court to vacate the current trial schedule and suspend all case deadlines during the appeal. Per the motion, both sides agree that the September trial date can no longer remain in place, though they disagree on whether a new trial date should be set while the appeal is pending.

    We’d love to be your preferred source for news.

    Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!

    Add as Preferred Source

    Plaintiffs, meanwhile, have pushed to keep the case moving. Direct purchaser attorney Joseph R. Saveri told Law360, “they plan to oppose the stay request,” adding that the litigation “has been pending for more than six years.” The plaintiffs have proposed moving the trial to June 1, 2027, along with proceeding on related motions involving arbitration and forum-selection issues.

    Altria and Juul argued in their filing that those disputes may become irrelevant depending on how the Ninth Circuit rules. According to Law360, the appeal focuses in part on whether California law can govern claims brought by out-of-state indirect purchasers and whether online purchasers can adequately represent larger commercial distributors in the certified classes.

    The underlying lawsuit stems from Altria’s 2018 investment in Juul, a $12.8 billion transaction that gave Altria a 35% ownership stake in the e-cigarette maker. Plaintiffs allege the agreement led Altria to abandon its own e-cigarette business, reducing competition and ultimately driving up prices for consumers and distributors.

    U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick certified the direct purchaser class and several indirect purchaser classes in February. The direct purchaser class includes wholesalers and other entities that bought e-cigarette products directly from Juul beginning Oct. 5, 2018. Indirect purchaser classes cover consumers who bought Juul pods for personal use between Oct. 25, 2018, and March 29, 2024, according to Law360.

    The dispute follows prior regulatory scrutiny of the Altria-Juul deal. The Federal Trade Commission challenged the transaction before ending its case in 2023 after Altria fully unwound its investment in Juul, per a statement referenced in the case background.

    Source: Law360