Today, the Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint (a public version of which will be available and linked to this news release as soon as possible) alleging that Altria Group, Inc. and JUUL Labs, Inc. entered a series of agreements, including Altria’s acquisition of a 35% stake in JUUL, that eliminated competition in violation of federal antitrust laws.
“For several years, Altria and JUUL were competitors in the market for closed-system e-cigarettes. By the end of 2018, Altria orchestrated its exit from the e-cigarette market and became JUUL’s largest investor,” said Ian Conner, Director of the Bureau of Competition. “Altria and JUUL turned from competitors to collaborators by eliminating competition and sharing in JUUL’s profits.”
The FTC alleged that as competitors, Altria and JUUL monitored each other’s e-cigarette prices closely and raced to innovate. Altria also leveraged its ownership of leading brands across tobacco categories to secure favorable shelf space at retailers throughout the United States, the complaint alleges. Although early competition resulted in Altria’s MarkTen e-cigarette becoming the second most popular brand by market share, by late 2018, JUUL vaulted past the industry leaders Altria and Reynolds to become the leading e-cigarette company in the country.
The Commission alleges that Altria dealt with this competitive threat by agreeing not to compete in return for a substantial ownership interest in JUUL. Weeks after Altria declared its intention to wind down its e-cigarette business, Altria and JUUL announced an agreement that made Altria JUUL’s largest shareholder, allowed Altria to appoint an observer to JUUL’s Board of Directors, and would have permitted Altria to appoint three members of JUUL’s Board after converting its shares to voting securities. JUUL received over $12 billion, an agreement that Altria would not compete with JUUL for six years, and a range of support services.
The FTC alleges that Altria’s acquisition of JUUL shares and the associated agreements together constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act, and substantially lessened competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint was 5-0. The administrative trial is scheduled to begin on Jan. 5, 2021.
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
News Corp Faced Millions in Losses by Moving Away from Google Ads, Ex-Executive Testifies
Sep 10, 2024 by
CPI
EU Faces Critical Innovation Gap, Draghi Report Urges Antitrust Reforms
Sep 10, 2024 by
CPI
Womble Bond Dickinson and Lewis Roca to Merge, Forming 1,300-Lawyer Firm
Sep 10, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Dismisses Antitrust Lawsuit Against Fidelity and Schwab
Sep 10, 2024 by
CPI
FTC Reportedly To Probe 7-Eleven Owner’s Potential Takeover by Couche-Tard
Sep 10, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Canada & Mexico
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competitive Convergence: Mexico’s 30-Year Quest for Antitrust Parity with its Northern Neighbor
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competition and Digital Markets in North America: A Comparative Study of Antitrust Investigations in Mexico and the United States
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Recent Antitrust Development in Mexico: COFECE’s Preliminary Report on Amazon and Mercado Libre
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
The Cost of Making COFECE Disappear
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI