Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that the District of Columbia Superior Court had jurisdiction over a suit alleging JUUL Labs, Inc., had violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

The nonprofit Breathe DC, on behalf of itself and the general public, filed suit against JUUL Labs, Inc., in District of Columbia Superior Court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act by advertising its e-cigarette cartridges in a misleading way. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant labeled its JUULpod e-cigarette cartridges as either 5.0% nicotine strength or 3.0% nicotine strength, misleading consumers into believing JUULpods contain relatively low concentrations of nicotine. In fact, the plaintiff asserted, a single 5.0% nicotine strength pod delivers as much or more nicotine as a pack of 20 combustible cigarettes.

The defense filed a notice of removal, and the plaintiff moved to remand, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction.

Granting the plaintiff’s motion, the district court noted that the plaintiff’s complaint does not assert a federal cause of action or rely on federal law in any way. The court rejected the defense arguments that federal jurisdiction was proper under the substantial question of federal law or complete preemption doctrines. The plaintiff’s consumer protection claim does not raise the issue of whether JUUL complied with pertinent FDA standards, the court said. Moreover, the court found that the federal Tobacco Control Act, which, the defendant asserts, is relevant to the issue of whether it complied with federal law, does not carry preemptive force to warrant complete preemption.

The court also held that although there is complete diversity between the parties, the amount in controversy requirement has not been met. Even assuming JUUL’s total cost of complying with the plaintiff’s sought-after injunctive relief exceeds $75,000, the court said, under the applicable principle of non-aggregation, this cost must be apportioned among all D.C. consumers.

Citation: Breathe DC v. JUUL Labs, Inc., 2023 WL 4531767 (D.D.C. July 13, 2023).

Plaintiff counsel: Kim E. Richman, New York City.