Class Action Claims 7-Eleven Failed to Warn of Juul E-Cigarette Dangers [UPDATE]
Last Updated on February 2, 2022
Ali v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
Filed: October 13, 2021 ◆§ 1:21-cv-23588
7-Eleven faces a proposed class action over its allegedly intentional failure to warn consumers of the dangers of Juul e-cigarettes.
Florida
Case Updates
February 2, 2022 – Juul Class Action Against 7-Eleven Dismissed, Refiled
The proposed class action detailed on this page was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno on January 26, 2022 and re-filed five days later.
Judge Moreno stated in a one-page dismissal document that the plaintiff had failed to respond to the court’s January 18 order to show cause as to why the initial complaint and related summons were not served to 7-Eleven in a timely fashion since the suit’s filing last October.
A PDF version of the re-filed case can be found here.
Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
7-Eleven faces a proposed class action over its allegedly intentional failure to warn consumers of the dangers of Juul e-cigarettes.
The 23-page case, filed in Florida’s Southern District Court on October 13, charges that the convenience store giant has falsely and deceptively sold Juul e-cigarettes with no warning that the products are far more potent and addictive than conventional cigarettes. The case alleges that despite possessing knowledge of the extremely high nicotine content and “inordinate hazards” of Juul e-cigarettes, and marketing the devices as safer or at least comparable alternatives to cigarettes, 7-Eleven nevertheless failed to warn consumers that Juuls are unreasonably harmful and addictive, and prior to 2018 failed to state that Juuls contain any nicotine at all.
“Through a variety of advertising methods, including but not limited to product placement and postings in and around 7-Eleven stores and online advertising of the [Juul] Products, Defendant has made false representations regarding the true nature of the Products by, inter alia, omitting information know [sic] to Defendant that would be material to the purchasing decision of reasonable consumers like Plaintiff and the members of the putative class,” the complaint alleges.
Per the case, Juul buyers who believed they were purchasing a safer or at least comparable alternative to cigarettes were denied the benefit of their bargain given the fact that they bought a product with a much stronger nicotine delivery system.
Since the e-cigarettes’ debut in 2014, Juul has drawn the ire of government agencies, parents, schools and lawyers nationwide over its aggressive advertising of the products to young people as a safer alternative to cigarettes. Moreover, research has found that Juul users are being exposed to potentially harmful chemicals such as formaldehyde and heavy metals such as lead, and the e-cigarettes have been found to be linked to a lung condition known as popcorn lung, the lawsuit says.
The crux of the plaintiff’s complaint is that the consumer believed that buying a Juul e-cigarette meant buying something safer than, or at least a comparable alternative to, cigarettes. 7-Eleven knew the Juul’s nicotine delivery was inordinately higher than that of conventional cigarettes yet “failed to warn that the Products contained any nicotine at all,” the lawsuit alleges:
“Nicotine addiction can be a lifelong battle. Studies show that nicotine is as addictive as cocaine and heroin, yet Defendant gives No Warning that the Products contain disproportionately high concentrations of nicotine and have the ability to deliver nicotine faster and in greater amounts to the brain than conventional cigarettes.”
The lawsuit looks to cover all Florida residents who purchased Juul e-cigarettes from 7-Eleven, Inc. in the state within the last four years.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.