Pending Litigation Brought by Multinational Tobacco Companies against Governments
The International Legal Consortium at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids maintains a list of tobacco-related litigation currently before courts and tribunals around the world. This list contains claims challenging tobacco control measures that have been brought by the largest multinational tobacco firms through either the parent company or direct affiliate (unless otherwise noted). While we have attempted to include all legal challenges brought by multinational tobacco firms against governments, we cannot guarantee that this list is exhaustive.
Bangladesh Cigarette Manufacturers Association (Members include BAT)
The tobacco industry appealed a judgment declaring illegal a National Tobacco Control Cell notification that allowed the printing of the graphic health warning on the bottom 50% of tobacco packs and packages.
Matter is pending - one in the Appellate Division and the other in the High Court Division.(Last Updated 06/08/2020)
British American Tobacco Limited
British American Tobacco (BAT) is challenging plain packaging in Belgium. Plain packaging will enter into force for manufacturers on January 1, 2020.
BAT filed a motion with the Council of State, Belgium’s highest administrative court.(Last Updated 06/08/2020)
Souza Cruz Ltda. (BAT)
The tobacco industry challenged the constitutionality of the requirement of including a 30% text health warning in the front face of the packs.
Submitted in May 2017. Pending before 7.ª Vara Federal do Distrito Federal. ACT submitted an amicus brief in September 2017.(Last Updated 10/14/2019)
Sinditabaco (members include BAT, JTI, and PMI)
Numerous entities, including Brazilian tobacco lobbying group Sinditabaco, which counts BAT, JTI, and PMI as members, have challenged ANVISA Resolution No. 14 of March 15, 2012, which prohibits the use of certain additives in tobacco products.
Legal challenges have been filed before several different federal tribunals and are at different stages in the judicial process.(Last Updated 06/08/2020)
Imperial Tobacco Canada
Imperial Tobacco filed a lawsuit challenging Canada’s Tobacco Products Labelling Regulations, which were issued in 2011. The Regulations increase the size of mandatory pictorial health warnings to 75% of the package. The Regulations also require health information messages and toxic emissions statements to be displayed on cigarette packages.
The lawsuit was filed on April 25, 2012.(Last Updated 06/08/2020)
JTI Macdonald filed a lawsuit challenging Canada’s Tobacco Products Labelling Regulations, which were issued in 2011. The Regulations increase the size of mandatory pictorial health warnings to 75% of the package. The Regulations also require health information messages and toxic emissions statements to be displayed on cigarette packages.
The lawsuit was filed on April 3, 2012.(Last Updated 06/08/2020)
The tobacco industry is seeking to invalidate a local ordinance that banned the sale of tobacco products near educational and public health institutions in Popayan.
Pending. However, the local ordinance is not currently being enforced because of another claim submitted by an individual citizen that has represented the tobacco industry in other cases but is acting on his own behalf in this case.(Last Updated 06/08/2020)
Association National Committee for Tobacco Control
(Last Updated 02/24/2021)
Godfrey Phillips (joint venture with PMI)
ITC, Ltd (BAT 30% shareholder)
The tobacco industry challenged the validity of the 2014 rules that require 85% graphic health warnings on both sides of tobacco product packaging.
Lower court ruled in favor of the tobacco industry. Government and health groups appealed to the Supreme Court of India. Petition submitted in January 2018. Supreme Court stayed operation of lower court decision. Matter to be decided soon on the merits.(Last Updated 06/08/2020)
Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. (a subsidiary of BAT)
Pakistan Tobacco Company (a subsidiary of British American Tobacco) challenges the recently mandated 50% graphic health warning requirement.
During the initial hearing in this matter, the court refused to stay implementation of the 50% graphic health warnings. Additional hearings in near future.(Last Updated 06/08/2020)
Society for Alternative Media & Research (SAMAR) (as petitioner requesting government to implement 85% warnings); Pakistan Tobacco Company (a subsidiary of BAT) (as third party intervenor requesting government to NOT implement 85% warnings)
The Ministry of Health has delayed implementation of 85% health warnings on several occasions, and, as of the date of this review, the new health warning requirements have yet to be implemented. Public health groups have challenged this delay in the Islamabad High Court, and the Pakistan Tobacco Company, a BAT subsidiary, has joined the case as third party. In June 2018, 50% graphic health warnings went into effect in Pakistan. Notwithstanding the new 50% warnings, the challenge to the 85% warnings remains pending.
The matter remains pending. Additional hearings in the near future.(Last Updated 06/08/2020)
E-cigarette manufacturers, cigar manufacturers, trade associations, and retailers sued the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after the FDA published its deeming rule, extending the agency's regulatory jurisdiction over tobacco products to e-cigarettes, cigars, hookah, and other products that had not yet been regulated by the FDA.
There are around 10 cases brought by plaintiffs that include various legal challenges at various legal stages.(Last Updated 06/08/2020)
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc., which is wholly owned by BAT)
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc., which is wholly owned by BAT)
ITG Brands LLC (subsidiary of Imperial Brands)
Liggett Group LLC
Several major U.S. tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company (both subsidiaries of Reynolds American Inc., which is wholly owned by BAT) and ITG Brands LLC (a subsidiary of Imperial Brands), and other plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of the Food and Drug Administration's final rule establishing the requirements of pictorial health warnings on 50% of packaging. Plaintiffs allege that the health warnings constitute compelled speech and thus violate the First Amendment. Plaintiffs also allege several procedural violations.
The case was filed on April 3, 2020 and remains pending. The judge has postponed the effective date of the health warnings several times while the case is ongoing.(Last Updated 03/03/2021)
There's no pending litigation that matches the criteria you selected. Click on Reset to restart your search.
If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please contact us