1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 290
`
`
`
` [Submitting Counsel on Signature Page]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
`SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
`LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
`CONSOLIDATED MASTER
`COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`ALL PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 290
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`VI.
`VII.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3
`THE PARTIES .................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`PLAINTIFFS .......................................................................................................... 7
`B.
`DEFENDANTS ...................................................................................................... 8
`JURIDICTION AND VENUE .......................................................................................... 14
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................................... 14
`Each Defendant Was Instrumental in Seeking to Develop and Market the
`A.
`Blockbuster Sequel to Combustible Cigarettes, the “Most Successful
`Consumer Product of All Time.” .......................................................................... 14
`Defendants’ Strategy Was to Create a Nicotine Product That Would
`Maximize Profits Through Addiction. .................................................................. 22
`JLI and BOWEN Designed a Nicotine Delivery Device Intended to Create
`and Sustain Addiction. .......................................................................................... 37
`Defendants Developed and Implemented a Marketing Scheme to Mislead
`Consumers into Believing that JUUL Products Contained Less Nicotine
`Than They Actually Do and Were Healthy and Safe ............................................ 70
`Defendants Targeted the Youth Market .............................................................. 103
`JLI Partnered with Veteran Cigarette Industry Distributors and Retailers to
`Spread and Amplify their Deceptive Messages and Place JUUL Products
`within Reach of Millions of Customers, Including Kids and Non-Smokers. ..... 151
`ALTRIA Provided Services to JLI to Expand JUUL Sales and Maintain
`JUUL’s Position as the Dominant E-Cigarette ................................................... 181
`JLI, ALTRIA, and Others Have Successfully Caused More Young People
`to Start Using E-Cigarettes, Creating a Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic and
`Public Health Crisis ............................................................................................ 188
`JUUL Thrived Due to Extensive Efforts to Delay Meaningful Regulation
`of its Products ...................................................................................................... 194
`JUUL Usage Increases the Risk of Cardiovascular, Pulmonary,
`Neurological, and Other Bodily Injuries ............................................................. 210
`CAUSES OF ACTION ................................................................................................... 224
`TIMELINESS AND TOLLING OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ......................... 285
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................. 285
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`i
`
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 3 of 290
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) and Case Management Order
`
`No. 7 (Dkt. No. 405) governing adoption of Master and Short Form Complaints (Personal Injury)
`
`(“CMO-7”), the undersigned attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee
`
`(“PSC”) hereby file this Amended Consolidated Master Complaint (Personal Injury) (hereinafter
`
`“Amended PI Master Complaint”). This Amended PI Master Complaint is being filed as an
`administrative device1 to set forth potential claims that individual Plaintiffs may assert against
`DEFENDANTS in this MDL Litigation against the following DEFENDANTS:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`JUUL LABS, INC., previously d/b/a as PAX LABS, INC. and PLOOM INC.;
`
`ALTRIA GROUP, INC.;
`
`PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.;
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
`
`ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY;
`
`ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC;
`
`JAMES MONSEES;
`
`ADAM BOWEN;
`
`NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`HOYOUNG HUH;
`
`RIAZ VALANI;
`
`12. MOTHER MURPHY'S LABS, INC.;
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.;
`
`TOBACCO TECHNOLOGY, INC.;
`
`eLIQUITECH, INC.;
`
`16. MCLANE COMPANY, INC.;
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC;
`
`CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC.;
`
`CHEVRON CORPORATION;
`
`CIRCLE K STORES INC.;
`20.
`
`1 See In re Propulsid Products Liab. Litig., 208 F.R.D. 133, 141 (E.D. La. 2002).
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`
`- 1 -
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 4 of 290
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`SPEEDWAY LLC;
`
`7-ELEVEN, INC.;
`
`23. WALMART;
`
`24. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.
`
`(collectively referred to as “DEFENDANTS”).
`
`This Amended Master Complaint (Personal Injury) is an administrative device and sets
`
`forth questions of fact and law common to those claims subsumed within the context of this
`
`multidistrict proceeding. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, monetary restitution
`
`and all other available remedies as a result of injuries caused by DEFENDANTS’ defective
`
`products and wrongful conduct. Plaintiffs make the following allegations based upon their
`
`personal knowledge and upon information and belief, as well as upon their attorneys’
`
`investigative efforts regarding JUUL E-Cigarettes, which includes the JUUL E-Cigarette device
`
`(including all components) and JUUL Pods (including all components) which contain an E-
`
`Liquid (collectively referred to as “JUUL” or “JUUL Products”).
`
`This Amended Master Complaint (Personal Injury) does not necessarily include all claims
`
`asserted in all of the transferred actions to this Court, nor is it intended to consolidate for any
`
`purpose the separate claims of the Plaintiffs herein. It is anticipated that individual plaintiffs may
`
`adopt this Amended Master Complaint (Personal Injury) and the necessary causes of action
`
`herein through use of a separate Short Form Complaint (Personal Injury). Any separate facts and
`
`additional claims of individual Plaintiffs will be set forth in the Short Form Complaint (Personal
`
`Injury) filed by the respective Plaintiffs or their counsel. This Amended Master Complaint
`
`(Personal Injury) does not constitute a waiver or dismissal of any actions or claims asserted in
`
`those individual actions, nor does any Plaintiff relinquish the right to move to amend their
`
`individual claims to seek any additional claims and/or to add additional parties as discovery
`
`proceeds and facts and other circumstances may warrant.
`
`Plaintiffs plead all Claims and Causes of Action in this Amended Master Complaint
`
`(Personal Injury) in the broadest sense, pursuant to all laws that may apply under choice-of-law
`
`principles, including the laws of Plaintiffs’ resident States or other States that are deemed to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 5 of 290
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`apply.
`
`Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, hereby bring claims against DEFENDANTS, and
`
`allege as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`The battle to end nicotine addiction and its associated diseases and death has
`
`consumed our nation’s public health resources for more than half a century. After five decades
`
`of tireless efforts by public health advocates, litigators, and regulators, the war on tobacco was
`
`on the path to victory. By 2014, rates of smoking and nicotine addiction in this country were
`
`finally at an all-time low, particularly among teenagers. Until now. The United States, closer
`
`than ever to consigning the nicotine industry to the dustbin of history, now faces a youth nicotine
`
`epidemic of historic proportions. The swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has
`
`overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention
`
`at nearly every level—but it’s too little, too late.
`2.
`
`This public health crisis is no accident. What had been lauded as progress in
`
`curbing cigarette use, JUUL LABS INC.’S (JLI) co-founders ADAM BOWEN and JAMES
`
`MONSEES viewed as opportunity. Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
`
`regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, BOWEN, MONSEES, and investors in their company
`
`sought to introduce nicotine to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
`
`achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create and market a product that
`
`would make nicotine cool again, without any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help
`
`from their early investors and board members, who include NICOLAS PRITZKER, HUYOUNG
`
`HUH, and RIAZ VALANI (together, the “MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS”), they succeeded
`
`in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine
`
`addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits.
`3.
`
`Every step of the way, JLI, by calculated intention, adopted the cigarette
`
`industry’s playbook, in coordination with one of that industry’s innovators, cigarette giant
`
`ALTRIA. JLI was created in the image of the iconic American cigarette companies, which JLI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 6 of 290
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`founders praised for creating “the most successful consumer product of all time. . . . an amazing
`
`product.” The secret to that “amazing product”? Nicotine, a chemical that has deleterious
`
`effects on the developing brains of youths, and is the fundamental reason that people persist in
`
`using tobacco products posing the risk of pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular disease and other
`
`serious, often fatal, conditions. Through careful study of decades of cigarette industry
`
`documents, JLI knew that the key to developing and sustaining addiction was the amount and the
`
`efficiency of the nicotine delivery.
`4.
`
`Three tactics were central to decades of cigarette industry market dominance:
`
`product design to maximize addiction; mass deception; and targeting of youth. JLI and its co-
`
`conspirators adopted and mastered them all. First, JLI and BOWEN designed JUUL products to
`
`create and sustain addiction, not break it. JLI and BOWEN were the first to design an e-cigarette
`
`that could compete with combustible cigarettes on the speed and strength of nicotine delivery.
`
`Indeed, JUUL products use nicotine formulas and delivery methods much stronger than
`
`combustible cigarettes, confirming that what JLI and BOWEN designed was a starter product,
`
`not a cessation or cigarette replacement product. JLI and BOWEN also innovated by making an
`
`e-cigarette that was smooth and easy to inhale, practically eliminating the harsh “throat hit,”
`
`which otherwise deters nicotine consumption, especially among nicotine “learners,” as R.J.
`
`Reynolds’ chemist Claude Teague called new addicts, primarily young people.
`5.
`
`Second, JLI, the MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS and ALTRIA engaged in a
`
`campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications,
`
`advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL
`
`products’ packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products.
`
`Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of
`
`a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. In partnership with
`
`ALTRIA, JLI adopted a “Make the Switch” campaign to mislead consumers into thinking that
`
`JLI products were benign smoking cessation devices, even though JUUL was never designed to
`
`break addictions. JLI, the MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS, and ALTRIA also concealed the
`
`results of studies that revealed that JUUL products were far more powerfully addictive than was
`
`- 4 -
`
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 7 of 290
`
`
`
`disclosed. JLI’s deceptive marketing scheme was carried out across the country through broad
`
`distribution channels: veteran cigarette industry wholesalers, distributors and retailers ensured
`
`that JUUL products would become widely available to a new market of nicotine-newcomers,
`
`especially youth. JLI and the MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS joined with these veteran
`
`cigarette industry marketers to secure premium shelf space for vivid displays at convenience
`
`stores, like 7-11, and gas stations, including Chevron, that would lure e-cigarette users, young
`
`and old, who would become long-term customers. These marketing efforts have been resounding
`
`successes—when JUUL products were climbing in sales, most adults and youth believed that e-
`
`cigarettes did not contain nicotine at all.
`6.
`
`Third, JLI and the MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS, just like cigarette
`
`companies before them, targeted kids as their customer base. One of JLI’s “key needs” was the
`
`need to “own the ‘cool kid’ equity.” JUUL products were designed to appear slick and high-tech
`
`like a cool gadget, including video-game-like features like “party mode.” JLI offered kid-
`
`friendly flavors like mango and cool mint, and partnered with ALTRIA to create and preserve
`
`the market for mint-flavored products—all because Defendants knew that flavors get young
`
`people hooked. Under the guise of youth smoking prevention, JLI sent representatives directly
`
`to schools to study teenager e-cigarette preferences.
`7.
`
`JLI and
`
`the MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS
`
`reached
`
`their
`
`intended
`
`demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques
`
`(long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge
`
`viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using
`
`bright, “fun” themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards,
`
`on children’s websites such as “Nick Junior” and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing
`
`games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the
`
`MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS also employed young social-media “influencers” and
`
`celebrities popular with teenagers. When regulators and Congress caught onto JLI’s relentless
`
`focus on children, JLI and the MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS simply lied, even though they
`
`knew well that they had purposefully targeted youth in their marketing and those efforts had
`
`- 5 -
`
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 8 of 290
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`been breathtakingly successful. JUUL products are rampant in the nation’s schools, with the
`
`percentage of 12th graders who reported consuming nicotine almost doubling between 2017 and
`
`2018. The Surgeon General has warned that this new “epidemic of youth e-cigarette use” could
`
`condemn a generation to “a lifetime of nicotine addiction and associated health risks.”
`8.
`
`It should come as little surprise that JLI and the Management Defendants’
`
`misconduct, expressly patterned after decades of cigarette company practices, could not have
`
`been carried out without the involvement and expertise of an actual cigarette company. In
`
`December 2018, Altria paid $12.8 billion to acquire a 35% stake in JLI. Altria’s agreement to
`
`pull its competing e-cigarette product off the market was a non-negotiable condition of the deal
`
`demanded by JLI’s lead negotiators (and Management Defendants) Nicholas Pritzker and Riaz
`
`Valani, as well as CEO Ken Burns. JUUL’s market dominance was thus established, positioning
`
`Altria and JLI to share the profits. Defendants’ conduct prompted the Federal Trade
`
`Commission to sue JLI and Altria on April 1, 2020 alleging violations of the antitrust laws and
`
`seeking to unwind the JLI/Altria transaction.
`9.
`
`But even well before Altria announced its investment in JLI, the connections
`
`between the two companies ran deep. JLI and Altria collaborated to grow the e-cigarette market
`
`and the number of users addicted to nicotine, including by sharing data and information and
`
`coordinating marketing activities, including acquisition of key shelf space next to top-selling
`
`Marlboro cigarettes. Altria’s investment in JLI is not merely a financial proposition, but a key
`
`element of Defendants’ plan to stave off competition and regulation and keep their most potent
`
`and popular products on the market. Aside from profiting from reduced competition, JLI has
`
`benefitted from Altria’s expertise in designing and marketing addictive products, and in
`
`thwarting regulation.
`10.
`
`There is no doubt about it—JLI, the MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS,
`
`ALTRIA, and their co-Defendants have created this public health crisis. At the heart of this
`
`disastrous epidemic are the concerted efforts of JLI, its co-conspirators, and all those in JUUL’s
`
`supply and distribution chain to continuously expand their market share and profits by preying
`
`upon a vulnerable young population and deceiving the public about the true nature of the
`
`- 6 -
`
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 9 of 290
`
`
`
`products they were selling. Nicotine is not benign like coffee, contrary to what many JUUL users
`
`believe. Nor is the aerosol as harmless as puffing room air. Worse, the flavors in JUUL products
`
`are themselves toxic and dangerous, and have never been adequately tested to ensure they are
`
`safe for inhalation. According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products cause acute
`
`and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
`
`advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would
`
`help them “make the switch,” ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older
`
`adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and
`
`CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much
`
`longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring
`
`long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers
`
`start as children.
`11.
`
`Hundreds of individual and class actions have been filed in state and federal
`
`courts on behalf of the countless victims of JUUL’s e-cigarettes. On August 10, 2019, the
`
`Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all such actions then pending for pretrial
`
`purposes in this Court. See In re Juul Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liab.
`
`Litig., 396 F.Supp.3d 1366 (J.P.M.L. 2019). On January 13, 2020, this Court directed the filing
`
`of Amended Master Complaints on behalf of the Plaintiffs. ECF No. 351. Plaintiffs submit this
`
`Consolidated Amended Master Complaint (Personal Injury) seeking compensatory, treble, and
`
`punitive damages, medical monitoring, and all such other relief arising from Plaintiffs’ Personal
`
`Injuries as the Court deems proper.
`
`II.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`A.
`12.
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`This Amended Master Complaint (Personal Injury) is filed for all Plaintiffs and, if
`
`applicable, Plaintiffs’ spouses (“CONSORTIUM PLAINTIFFS”), children, Decedents, Estates
`
`or Wards represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel who file a Short Form Complaint (Personal Injury).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 10 of 290
`
`
`By operation of anticipated CMO-7, all allegations pleaded herein are deemed pleaded in any
`
`Short Form Complaint (Personal Injury).
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered various personal injuries described herein as a direct and
`
`proximate result of their use of JUUL Products, as well as any other injuries set forth a Short
`
`Form Complaint (Personal Injury).
`
`B.
`
`14.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`1)
`THE JUUL DEFENDANTS
`Defendant JUUL LABS, INC. (“JLI”) is a Delaware corporation, with its
`
`principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Ploom, Inc., a predecessor company to
`
`JLI, was incorporated in Delaware on March 12, 2007. In 2015, Ploom, Inc. changed its name to
`
`PAX Labs, Inc. In April 2017, PAX Labs, Inc. changed its name to JUUL Labs, Inc., and formed
`
`a new subsidiary corporation with its old name, PAX Labs, Inc. That new subsidiary, PAX Labs,
`
`Inc. (“PAX”), was incorporated in Delaware on April 21, 2017 and has its principal place of
`
`business in San Francisco, California.
`15.
`
`JLI, designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes
`
`JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL Pods and accessories (collectively “JUUL or JUUL
`
`products”). Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI in or around April
`
`2017, JLI designed, manufactured, sold, marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL
`
`under the name PAX Labs, Inc.
`16.
`17.
`
`Together with its predecessors, JUUL Labs Inc. is referred to herein as “JLI.”
`
`Defendant ALTRIA GROUP, INC., (AGI”) is a Virginia corporation, with its
`
`principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. AGI is one of the world’s largest producers
`
`and marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling “traditional” cigarettes for more
`
`than a century. On December 20, 2018, AGI purchased a 35% stake in JLI. ALTRIA and JLI
`
`executed a Services Agreement that provides that AGI through its subsidiaries, would assist JLI
`
`in the selling, marketing, promoting, and distributing of JUUL, among other things.
`18.
`
`Defendant PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. (“Philip Morris”), is a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of AGI. Philip Morris is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`- 8 -
`
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 11 of 290
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris is the largest cigarette company in the United States.
`
`Marlboro, the principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest selling cigarette
`
`brand in the United States for over 40 years. Philip Morris performs direct marketing support
`
`services for JLI under the Services Agreement to assist JLI in selling, marketing and promoting
`
`JUUL. This has included, among other things, placing JUUL Product inserts in millions of packs
`
`of L&M, Parliament, and Marlboro cigarettes and utilizing Philip Morris’s extensive consumer
`
`market database for targeted direct marketing purposes.
`19.
`
`Defendant ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC (“ACS”) is a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of AGI. ACS is a Virginia limited liability company with its principal place of
`
`business in Richmond, Virginia. ACS and JLI have executed several Statements of Work
`
`whereby ACS performs services under the Services Agreement to assist JLI in the sale,
`
`marketing, promotion and distribution of JUUL. Such services include database support, direct
`
`marketing support, and premarket product application support.
`20.
`
`Defendant ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (“AGDC”) is a
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary of AGI. AGDC is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Richmond, Virginia. AGDC and JLI have executed several Statements of Work
`
`whereby AGDC performs services under the Services Agreement to assist JLI in the sale,
`
`marketing, promotion and distribution of JUUL. Such services include JUUL-distribution
`
`support, the removal by AGDC of Nu Mark e-cigarette products (such as Green Smoke or
`
`MarkTen) and fixtures in retail stores and replacing them with JLI products and fixtures, and
`
`sales support services.
`21.
`
`Defendant ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC (“AE”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary
`
`of AGI. AE is a Virginia limited liability company with its principal place of business in
`
`Richmond, Virginia. AE is a party to the purchase agreement between AGI and JLI. AE
`
`purchased ALTRIA’s stake in JLI on ALTRIA’s behalf.
`22.
`
`AGI, Philip Morris, ACS, AGDC, and AE are referred jointly as the “ALTRIA
`
`DEFENDANTS” or “ALTRIA.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 12 of 290
`
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, the ALTRIA DEFENDANTS conducted meetings,
`
`interviews and inspections at the JLI facilities in San Francisco and engaged in frequent
`
`communications regarding JUUL with JLI in California and elsewhere prior to, during and
`
`subsequent to its stock purchase.
`24.
`
`JLI and the ALTRIA DEFENDANTS are referred to jointly in the causes of
`
`action below as the “JUUL DEFENDANTS.”
`
`2)
`THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS
`JAMES MONSEES is a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2007, he co-
`
`25.
`
`founded Ploom with ADAM BOWEN. Mr. MONSEES served as Chief Executive Officer of JLI
`
`until October 2015. Since October 2015, Mr. MONSEES has been Chief Product Officer of JLI.
`
`At all relevant times, he has been a member of the Board of Directors of JLI or its predecessors.
`26.
`
`ADAM BOWEN is a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2007, he co-
`
`founded Ploom with Mr. MONSEES. At all relevant times, Mr. BOWEN has been Chief
`
`Technology Officer and a member of the Board of Directors of JLI or its predecessors.
`27.
`
`NICHOLAS PRITZKER is a resident of San Francisco, California, and a member
`
`of the PRITZKER family, which owned the chewing-tobacco giant Conwood before selling it to
`
`Reynolds American, Inc., a subsidiary of British American Tobacco. PRITZKER received a J.D.
`
`from the University of Chicago. He served as president of the Hyatt Hotels Corporation and was
`
`a member of its Board of Directors from 1980 to 2007. More recently, Mr. PRITZKER co-
`
`founded Tao Capital, an early investor in, among other companies, Tesla Motors and Uber. In
`2007, he invested in JLI.2 He has been on the Board of Directors of JLI or its predecessors since
`at least June 2014.3 And from at least October 2015 to at least August 2016, Mr. PRITZKER
`was on the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of JLI. As of November 2017, he
`
`
`2 Ainsley Harris, How JUUL went from a Stanford thesis to $16 billion startup, Fast Company
`(March 8, 2020 4:11PM PST), https://www.fastcompany.com/90263212/how-JUUL-went-from-
`a-stanford-thesis-to-16-billion-startup.
`3 INREJUUL_00371187.
`
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 13 of 290
`
`
`controlled two JLI Board seats (the second of which was occupied by HOYOUNG HUH,
`discussed next).4
`28.
`HOYOUNG HUH lives and works in the Silicon Valley area. Dr. HUH holds an
`
`M.D. from Cornell and a Ph.D. in Genetics/Cell Biology from Cornell/Sloan-Kettering. He has
`
`been CEO or a Board member of numerous biotechnology businesses, including Geron
`
`Corporation. Dr. HUH has been on the Board of Directors of JLI or its predecessors since at least
`
`June 2015. And from at least October 2015 to at least August 2016, he was on the Executive
`
`Committee of the Board of Directors of JLI. As of November 2017, he served as PRITZKER’s
`second seat on the Board.5
`29.
`RIAZ VALANI lives near San Jose and is a general partner at Global Asset
`
`Capital, a San Francisco-based private equity investment firm. He has been on the Board of
`
`Directors of JLI or its predecessors since at least May 2011. And from at least October 2015 to at
`
`least August 2016, he was on the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of JLI. As of
`
`November 2017, he controlled two Board seats, the second of which was occupied by Zach
`Frankel.6
`30. MONSEES, BOWEN, PRITZKER, HUH, and VALANI are referred to jointly as
`
`the “MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS.”
`
`3)
`THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS
`Defendant MOTHER MURPHY’S LABS, INC. (“MOTHER MURPHY’S”) is a
`
`31.
`
`North Carolina corporation, with a principal place of business in Greensboro, North Carolina.
`
`Mother Murphy’s is in the business of manufacturing and supplying E-Liquids and the
`
`ingredients and additives in E-Liquids including the E-Liquid in JUUL.
`32.
`
`Defendant ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC. (“ALTERNATIVE”) is a
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of Mother Murphy’s. Alternative is a North Carolina corporation,
`
`having a principal place of business in Greensboro, North Carolina. Alternative is in the business
`
`
`4 INREJUUL_00327603.
`5 Id.
`6 Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT
`(PERSONAL INJURY)
`CASE NO. 19-MD-02913-WHO
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 677 Filed 06/18/20 Page 14 of 290
`
`
`of manufacturing and supplying E-Liquids, flavoring additives and raw ingredients in E-Liquids,
`
`including the E-Liquid in JUUL.
`33.
`
`Defendant TOBACCO TECHNOLOGY,
`
`INC.
`
`(“TTI”)
`
`is a Maryland
`
`corporation, with a principal place of business in Eldersburg, Maryland. TTI is in the business of
`
`manufacturing and supplying E-Liquids, flavoring additives and raw ingredients in E-Liquids,
`
`including the E-Liquid in JUUL.
`34.
`
`Defendant ELIQUITECH, INC. (“ELIQUITECH”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary
`
`of TTI. ELiquitech is a Maryland corporation, with a principal place of business in Eldersburg,
`
`Maryland. ELiquitech is in the business of manufacturing and supplying E-Liquids, flavoring
`
`additives and raw ingredients in E-Liquids, including the E-Liquid in JUUL.
`35. Mother Murphy's, Alternative, TTI, and ELiquitech, are referred to jointly as the
`
`“E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS.”
`
`4)
`DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS
`Defendant MCLANE COMPANY, INC. (“MCLANE”) is a Texas corporation
`