Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Two plaintiffs sought certification for a class action against JUUL Labs Canada Ltd., JUUL Labs, Inc., and Altria Group Inc. for damages for personal injuries caused by JUUL e-cigarettes. The class action alleged that the Defendants falsely marketed JUUL e-cigarettes as a safe alternative to smoking, despite e-cigarettes being hazardous, and conspired to addict a new generation to nicotine, knowing addiction and injury were likely to result.
Following the class action certification hearing, the Defendants requested that an affidavit submitted by the Plaintiffs be struck, as the affidavit was submitted after a deadline set at the case management conference. The Judge concluded that, in order to balance the principles of truth-seeking, fairness and prejudice, the affidavit was admissible, but the Defendants would be granted an opportunity to respond.
The Defendants’ motion to strike was dismissed.