Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`
`
`Cristian Ali, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`- against -
`
`Defendant
`
`7-Eleven, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-20328
`
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, Cristian Ali, (“Plaintiff”) by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant
`
`to all applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files this class action complaint on
`
`behalf of himself and all others similarly situated throughout the United States, and alleges
`
`against Defendant, 7-ELEVEN, INC., (“Defendant”) as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Founded in 1927, 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”) is an American company that
`
`operates an international chain of convenience stores with approximately 71,100 stores in 17
`
`countries. In addition to snacks, gas and miscellaneous retail items, Defendant markets,
`
`advertises, distributes and sells various types of tobacco products, including but not limited to
`
`e-cigarettes. At issue here is Defendant’s marketing and sale of JUUL E-Cigarettes (the
`
`“Products”). See Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein, a true and correct
`
`representation of the Products’ label.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant markets the Products as a safer or at least comparable alternative to
`
`cigarettes when in fact they are not because a single JUUL e-cigarette delivers the same amount
`
`of nicotine as an entire pack of traditional cigarettes; the Products highly concentrated nicotine
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`delivery system causes users to easily become addicted to the harmful Products.1 Defendant
`
`provides No Warning that the Products are far more potent and addictive than conventional
`
`cigarettes.
`
`3.
`
`The nicotine content in JUUL pods is much higher than in cigarettes as well as
`
`most other e-cigarettes, especially among those sold in the United States. This is partially
`
`because the Products contain protonated nicotine, which allows users to absorb higher
`
`concentrations than they would from products made with free-base nicotine. Protonated
`
`nicotine is less harsh and thus easier to handle for those who were not previously smokers,
`
`further contributing to the Products’ addictiveness.2 The discreet appearance of the Products
`
`and lack of smoke also make them appeal to younger generations and people who previously
`
`had no interest in smoking or seek safer alternatives to cigarettes.
`
`4.
`
`In addition to the inordinately high risk of nicotine addiction, the Products have
`
`also been associated with nicotine poisoning and toxicity. The Food and Drug Administration
`
`has received numerous reports of JUUL users, primarily teenagers and young adults, who have
`
`suffered seizures and convulsions as a result of nicotine poisoning and toxicity.3 Researchers
`
`
`1 Judith J Prochaska, Erin A Vogel , and Neal Benowitz, “Nicotine delivery and cigarette
`equivalents from vaping a Juul pod,”National Library of Medicine: National Center for
`Biotechnology Information, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33762429/ (last visited August
`11, 2021). See also “How Much Nicotine is in JUUL,” TruthInitiaative.org,
`https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/emerging-tobacco-products/how-much-nicotine-
`juul (“The amount of nicotine in one standard JUUL cartridge is roughly equal to the amount
`of nicotine in a pack of cigarettes, or about 200 puffs, according to the JUUL website”).
`2 “Effect of free-base and protonated nicotine on nicotine yield from electronic cigarettes
`with varying power and liquid vehicle,” Scientific Reports, (October 1, 2020).
`https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73385-6.“See also, “Effect of Exposure to E-
`Cigarettes with Salt vs. Nicotine on the Appeal and Sensory Experience of Vaping,”
`JAMA Network. (January 12, 2021).
`https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774851.
`
`3 https://www.drugwatch.com/e-cigarettes/side-effects/
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`have also found that users are being exposed to an assortment of potentially harmful
`
`chemicals, including nicotine and formaldehyde, as well as heavy metals, such as lead.
`
`Researchers have also found links to an incurable lung condition known as popcorn lung.4
`
`5.
`
`Furthermore, it comes as no surprise to Defendant that its Products are
`
`deceptively addicting and unreasonably dangerous to consumers. Prior to the Products debut in
`
`2014, JUUL specifically informed Defendant 7-Eleven of the Products’ chemistry in order to
`
`persuade them to purchase the new Products.5
`
`6.
`
`Since then, as a result of aggressive advertising the Products using young adult
`
`models to glamorize vaping, JUUL has been accused by government agencies and in various
`
`lawsuits of targeting young and underage people in its advertising in order to get a new
`
`generation addicted to nicotine. The lawsuits also claim that JUUL intentionally created a small,
`
`sleek device that contained a high concentration of nicotine that delivered the nicotine in an
`
`expedited manner, and that the devices were then deceptively marketed to a young generation
`
`as safer than cigarettes.6
`
`7.
`
`Despite Defendant’s actual knowledge of the extremely high nicotine content and
`
`
`
`4 Id.
`5 Julie Creswell and Sheila Kaplan, “How JUUL Hooked a Generation on Nicotine,” New
`York Times (November 23, 2019). Available at
`https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/23/health/juul- vaping-crisis.html (“The high level of
`nicotine also appealed to skeptical retailers. In the summer of 2014, the year before Juul’s
`debut, the sales teams had run into resistance from stores who were stuck with other e-
`cigarette inventory that simply was not selling. But by focusing on the chemistry behind Juul,
`and its delivery of nicotine levels that were close to combustible cigarettes, two former sales
`executives said, they persuaded convenience store chains like 7- Eleven and Circle K to order
`the new product”).
`6 https://www.drugwatch.com/e-cigarettes/lawsuits/
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`wealth of information elucidating the inordinate hazards of the Products, Defendant failed to
`
`warn that the Products it markets and sells are far more potent and addictive than tobacco
`
`cigarettes. In fact, prior to 2018, Defendant failed to warn that the Products contained any
`
`nicotine at all.7
`
`8.
`
`As a result, Plaintiff has purchased Products that are unreasonably harmful and
`
`addictive and not as represented by Defendant. Defendant’s marketing and advertising of the
`
`Products is false and deceptive. 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 Products, Defendant has made false representations regarding the true nature of the
`
`Products by, inter alia, omitting information know to Defendant that would be material to the
`
`purchasing decision of reasonable consumers like Plaintiff and the members of the putative
`
`class.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff and consumers expected to purchase a safer or at least comparable
`
`alternative to cigarettes only to learn that they were in fact purchasing a product with a much
`
`higher nicotine delivery system than conventional cigarettes; as a result, plaintiff and
`
`consumers were denied the benefit of their bargain.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant’s false and misleading representations and omissions violate state
`
`and federal law, including Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, as detailed more
`
`fully below.
`
`
`7 Julie Creswell and Sheila Kaplan, “How JUUL Hooked a Generation on Nicotine,” New
`York Times (November 23, 2019). Available at
`https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/23/health/juul- vaping-crisis.html.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter presented by this Complaint
`
`because it is a class action arising under 18 U.S.C. § 1332(d), which, under the Class Action
`
`Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), explicitly provides for
`
`the original jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of any class action in which any member of the
`
`Plaintiff class is a citizen of a state different from any Defendant, and in which the matter in
`
`controversy exceeds in the aggregate the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`12.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the total claims of individual
`
`class members in this action are in excess of $5,000,000 in the aggregate, exclusive of interest
`
`and costs, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (5). Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Florida,
`
`as set forth below, and Defendant can be considered a citizen of Texas. Therefore, diversity of
`
`citizenship exists under CAFA as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A).
`
`13.
`
`Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because
`
`Defendant conducts business within, may be found in, and is subject to personal jurisdiction in
`
`this judicial district, and Plaintiff resides in and purchased the Products that are the subject of
`
`this action in this judicial district.
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Cristian Ali is an individual consumer over the age of 18. He resides
`
`in Miami-Dade county and is a citizen of Florida. Plaintiff purchased the Products from a 7-
`
`Eleven located in Miami Beach, Florida, 33139.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages on behalf of himself and the
`
`Class, and respectfully requests a jury trial on damage claims.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. is a Texas corporation and lists its corporate
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`headquarters in Dallas, Texas. Therefore, Defendant maybe considered a citizen of Texas. At
`
`all relevant times, Defendant marketed, distributed and sold various consumer Products,
`
`including the Products that is the subject of this lawsuit, to Plaintiff and members of the class
`
`throughout this judicial district and the rest of the United States.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`17.
`
`Electronic cigarettes (also known as e-cigarettes, e-cigs, and vaping products)
`
`are designed to look like cigarettes, writing pens, USB flash drives, and other common
`
`products.
`
`18.
`
`These devices use a liquid that contains nicotine and various types of flavors, as
`
`well as propylene glycol and glycerin. The liquid is heated through the use of a battery and
`
`heating coils and then becomes a vapor, where it can be inhaled; hence its use is often referred
`
`to as "vaping". These products are officially referenced as electronic nicotine delivery systems
`
`(ENDS).
`
`19.
`
`JUUL products are the most common form of e-cigarettes currently utilized.
`
`JUUL delivery systems (known as pods) look similar to a USB flash drive and contain
`
`dangerously high amounts of nicotine. A single JUUL pod contains the same amount of nicotine
`
`as an entire pack of traditional cigarettes. As explained above, JUUL pods have a much higher
`
`concentration of nicotine than cigarettes and the nicotine is absorbed by the body at a higher
`
`rate than cigarettes.
`
`20.
`
`Nicotine has long been known to be a dangerous and harmful chemical. Some
`
`of the many negative health effects of nicotine include lung, pancreatic, and breast cancer;
`
`respiratory problems; kidney disease; coronary artery disease; emphysema; gastroesophageal
`
`reflux disease (GERD); reproductive issues; macular degeneration (cataracts and vision loss);
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`and addiction, which increases the likelihood of contracting the aforementioned afflictions.
`
`21.
`
`In addition, when heated, vape products can produce particles of heavy metals
`
`such as cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel, all of which can become lodged in
`
`lung tissue.
`
`22.
`
`As a result, not only does JUUL vaping result in addiction, but also increased
`
`exposure to carcinogens, nicotine poisoning, and lung disease (popcorn lung).
`
`23.
`
`In April 2018, the Journal of Pediatrics published a report about the
`
`carcinogenic effects of the flavoring chemicals used in vape juice to provide fruit flavors.
`
`Chemicals included formaldehyde (embalming fluid), toluene (an ingredient in paint thinners
`
`and commercial adhesives) and acrolein (used to kill off plant and algae blooms in irrigation
`
`canals and water treatment ponds). These chemicals can cause the development of bronchiolitis
`
`obliterans, a serious lung disease that is irreversible, and commonly known as “popcorn lung.”
`
`Symptoms of popcorn lung include coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath, similar to the
`
`symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.8
`
`24.
`
`Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration has received numerous reports
`
`of JUUL users, primarily teenagers and young adults, who have suffered seizures and
`
`convulsions as a result of nicotine poisoning and toxicity. Symptoms of nicotine poisoning
`
`include blood clots, convulsions, embolisms, elevated blood pressure, heart injuries, joint pain,
`
`seizures, and strokes.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff Cristian Ali purchased the e-cigarette Products, including but not
`
`limited to JUUL menthol e-cigarettes, from a 7-Eleven in Miami Beach, Florida numerous
`
`times within the four years preceding the filing of this complaint.
`
`
`8 Available at https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/141/4/e20173557.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`26.
`
`In purchasing the Products from his local 7-Eleven, Plaintiff believed that the
`
`Products were a safer or at least comparable alternative to cigarettes when in fact they are not
`
`because the Products have a far higher content of nicotine and are far more addictive than
`
`conventional cigarettes. Defendant knew this and promoted the Products without any indication
`
`of it. In fact, prior to 2018, defendant failed to warn that the Products contained any nicotine at
`
`all.9
`
`27.
`
`Nicotine addiction can be a lifelong battle. Studies show that nicotine is as
`
`addictive as cocaine and heroin,10yet 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.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant provides no warning or disclaimer of the inordinately addictive and
`
`harmful nature of the Products compared to conventional cigarettes, and Defendant’s
`
`advertising and marketing is deceptive and likely to mislead the public as a result. Plaintiff and
`
`class members would not have purchased the Products if they had known the true nature of its
`
`harmful effects.
`
`29.
`
`In purchasing the Products, Plaintiff, like and objectively reasonable consumer,
`
`relied upon the marketing of the Product by 7-Eleven, including without limitation, product
`
`placement, placards and signage on and around 7-Eleven locations as well as Product pricing
`
`Products misrepresenting them as safer or at the very least no more harmful than conventional
`
`cigarettes. Omission of the harmful content and effect of the Products in the marketing by 7-
`
`Eleven is omission of information that would be material to any objectively reasonable
`
`
`9 Julie Creswell and Sheila Kaplan, “How JUUL Hooked a Generation on Nicotine,” New York Times (November
`23, 2019). Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/23/health/juul- vaping-crisis.html.
`10 https://www.drugwatch.com/e-cigarettes/side-effects/nicotine-addiction/
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`consumer, like Plaintiff and the absent members of the putative class. Plaintiff and class
`
`members have been damaged by their purchase of the Products because the labeling and
`
`advertising for the Products was and is deceptive and misleading; therefore, the Products are
`
`worth less than what Plaintiff paid for them, and Plaintiff and class members did not receive
`
`what they reasonably intended to receive.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant’s failure to warn that the Products are unreasonably dangerous and
`
`excessively addictive was important to Plaintiff and Class members in deciding to purchase and
`
`consume the Products because they would not have purchased the Products had they been
`
`advertised and labeled with a warning of their extremely high nicotine content and
`
`disproportionate health risks to consumers.
`
`31.
`
`On information and belief, the Japanese partnership that controls the Defendant
`
`does not allow the product to be sold in Japan due to the dangerous nature of the Product, yet
`
`the same control group has no problem selling the Product in the United States.
`
`32.
`
`At a minimum, Plaintiff and Class Members contend that Defendant should be
`
`prohibited from selling the Products or at the very least include a warning that the Products
`
`contain a much higher concentration of nicotine and thus pose a far greater risk of addiction
`
`public than that seen with conventional cigarettes.
`
`V.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth above.
`
`Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
`
`seeks certification of the claims and certain issues in this action pursuant to the applicable
`
`provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the following individuals:
`
`• All Florida residents who purchased JUUL E-Cigarettes (the “Products”) from
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`7- Eleven, Inc. (“Defendant”) in Florida from the four years preceding the filing
`
`of this complaint to present (“Class Period”).
`
`• Excluded from the Class are Defendant and any officer, director, employee,
`
`legal counsel, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with
`
`Defendant and the members of the judiciary and their office staff to whom this
`
`case may be assigned.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant’s practices and omissions were applied uniformly to all members of
`
`the Class, so that the questions of law and fact are common to all members of the Class. All
`
`members of the Class were and are similarly affected by having purchased and used the
`
`Products, which they would not have done had Defendant properly warned class members that
`
`the Products are far more potent and addictive than other types of cigarettes and the relief sought
`
`herein is for the benefit of Plaintiff and members of the putative Class.
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the Plaintiff Class is so
`
`numerous that joinder of all members would be impractical. Based on the annual sales of the
`
`Products and the popularity of the Products, it is apparent that the number of consumers of the
`
`Products would at least be in the many thousands, thereby making joinder impossible.
`
`37.
`
`Questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff and the Class exist that
`
`predominate over questions affecting only individual members, including, inter alia:
`
`a.
`
`Whether Defendant’s practices in connection with the design, testing,
`
`manufacture, assembly, development, promotion, marketing, advertising and
`
`sale of the Products were deceptive or unfair in any respect, thereby violating the
`
`Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, inter alia, sections 501.201 to
`
`201.213, Florida Statutes;
`
`b.
`
`Whether Defendant failed to warn that the Products contain a highly
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`concentrated nicotine delivery system;
`
`c.
`
`Whether Defendant failed to warn that the Products are inordinately addictive
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`and pose a public health risk;
`
`Whether Defendant negligently misrepresented the true nature of the Products;
`
`Whether Defendant breached implied warranties in its sale of the Products,
`
`thereby causing harm to Plaintiff and Class members;
`
`Whether Defendant violated the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§
`2301,
`
`et seq.;
`
`Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched;
`
`Whether Defendant’s conduct as set forth above injured consumers and if so,
`
`the extent of the injury; and
`
`i.
`
`Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a Declaratory Judgment as a result of
`
`Defendant’s practices and representations related to the marketing, labeling and
`
`sales of the Products.
`
`38.
`
`The claims asserted by Plaintiff in this action are typical of the claims of the
`
`members of the Plaintiff Class, as the claims arise from the same course of conduct by
`
`Defendant, and the relief sought is common.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
`
`members of the Plaintiff Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in
`
`both consumer protection and class action litigation.
`
`40.
`
`Certification of this class action is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23 because the questions of law or fact common to the respective members of the
`
`Class predominate over questions of law or fact affecting only individual members. This
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`predominance makes class litigation superior to any other method available for the fair and
`
`efficient adjudication of these claims.
`
`41.
`
`Absent a class action, it would be highly unlikely that the representative Plaintiff
`
`or any other members of the Class would be able to protect their own interests because the cost
`
`of litigation through individual lawsuits might exceed expected recovery.
`
`42.
`
`Certification is also appropriate because Defendant acted or refused to act on
`
`grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief
`
`with respect to the Class as a whole.
`
`43.
`
`Further, given the large number of class members, allowing individual actions
`
`to proceed in lieu of a class action would run the risk of yielding inconsistent and conflicting
`
`adjudications.
`
`44.
`
`A class action is a fair and appropriate method for the adjudication of the
`
`controversy, in that it will permit a large number of claims to be resolved in a single forum
`
`simultaneously, efficiently, and without the unnecessary hardship that would result from the
`
`prosecution of numerous individual actions and the duplication of discovery, effort, expense
`
`and burden on the courts that such individual actions would engender.
`
`45.
`
`The benefits of proceeding as a class action, including providing a method for
`
`obtaining redress for claims that would not be practical to pursue individually, outweigh any
`
`difficulties that might be argued with regard to the management of this class action.
`
`VI.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF FLORIDA’S DECEPTIVE
`AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, FLA. STAT. §§ 501.201, ET SEQ.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference verbatim the allegations set
`
`forth in the preceding paragraphs.
`
`47.
`
`This cause of action is brought pursuant the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`Practices Act, Sections 501.201 to 201.213, Florida Statutes. The express purpose of the Act is
`
`to “protect the consuming public...from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or
`
`unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce”
`
`Section 501.202(2).
`
`48.
`
`The sale of the Products at issue in this cause was a “consumer transaction”
`
`within the scope of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Sections 501.201 to
`
`201.213, Florida Statutes.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by Section 501.203, Florida Statutes. The
`
`Products are a “good” within the meaning of the Act. Defendant is engaged in trade or
`
`commerce within the meaning of the Act.
`
`50.
`
`Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes declares as unlawful “unfair methods of
`
`competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
`
`conduct of any trade or commerce”.
`
`51.
`
`Section 501.204(2), Florida Statutes states that “due consideration be given to
`
`the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to Section
`
`5(a)(1) of the Trade Commission Act”. Defendants’ unfair and deceptive practices are likely to
`
`mislead – and have misled – the consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances and,
`
`therefore, violate the FTC’s prohibition of false and deceptive advertising of tobacco products.
`
`52.
`
`Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices
`
`described above, which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous and
`
`substantially injurious to consumers. Specifically, Defendant has represented the Products as
`
`safer or at least comparable alternatives to cigarettes and failed to warn that the Products deliver
`
`a much higher concentration of nicotine and are in fact much more addictive than conventional
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`cigarettes.
`
`53.
`
`As explained above, Defendant had actual knowledge that the Products were far
`
`more potent and addictive than cigarettes. Prior to the Products debut in 2014, JUUL
`
`specifically informed Defendant of the Product’s chemistry in order to persuade them to
`
`purchase the then new Products.11 In addition, JUUL acknowledged on its own website that a
`
`single pod is equivalent to an entire pack of cigarettes and has been the target of thousands of
`
`public and private lawsuits unmasking the deceptively and dangerously high nicotine content
`
`in the Products.12
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members have been aggrieved by Defendant’s unfair and
`
`deceptive practices in that they purchased and consumed Defendant’s Products.13
`
`55.
`
`A reasonable consumer relies on retailers to be truthful in their marketing. In
`
`fact, 7 Eleven recognizes its duty to be responsible and prides itself on setting the standard for
`
`responsible retailing in the convenience industry:
`
`Being a great neighbor is all about investing and getting involved. It’s also about
`responsibility, which is one of our key business principals. That’s why we put such
`a focus on serving people, improving our products and protecting the planet. 7-
`Eleven is proud to set the standard for responsible retailing in the convenience
`industry.
`
`
`
`https://corp.7-eleven.com/corp/about (last visited September 4, 2021).
`
`
`
`11 Julie Creswell and Sheila Kaplan, “How JUUL Hooked a Generation on Nicotine,” New
`York Times (November 23, 2019). Available at
`https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/23/health/juul- vaping-crisis.html (“The high level of
`nicotine also appealed to skeptical retailers. In the summer of 2014, the year before Juul’s debut,
`the sales teams had run into resistance from stores who were stuck with other e-cigarette
`inventory that simply was not selling. But by focusing on the chemistry behind Juul, and its
`delivery of nicotine levels that were close to combustible cigarettes, two former sales
`executives said, they persuaded convenience store chains like 7- Eleven and Circle K to order
`the new product”).
`12 “How Much Nicotine is in JUUL,” TruthInitiaative.org, https://truthinitiative.org/research- resources/emerging-
`tobacco-products/how-much-nicotine-juul (“The amount of nicotine in one standard JUUL cartridge is roughly equal
`to the amount of nicotine in a pack of cigarettes, or about 200 puffs, according to the JUUL website”).
`13 https://www.drugwatch.com/e-cigarettes/lawsuits/.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`
`56.
`
`As described in detail above, Defendant has represented its Products as products
`
`as safer or comparable alternatives to cigarettes and failed to warn that the Products are more
`
`potent and addictive than other types of cigarettes. Prior to 2018, Defendant failed to warn that
`
`the Products contained any nicotine at all.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant has deceived reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff and the Class, into
`
`believing its Products was something it was not—a safer alternative to cigarettes or at the very
`
`least no more harmful than any other.
`
`58.
`
`The knowledge required to discern the true nature of Defendant’s Products is
`
`beyond that of the reasonable consumer—namely that the Products are far more potent and
`
`addictive than conventional cigarettes.
`
`59.
`
`The damages suffered by the Plaintiffs and the Class were directly and
`
`proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading and unfair practices of Defendant, as
`
`described above.
`
`60.
`
`Pursuant to Section 501.211(1), Florida Statutes, Plaintiff and the Class seek a
`
`declaratory judgment and court order enjoining the above described wrongful acts and practices
`
`of the Defendant and for restitution and disgorgement.
`
`61.
`
`Additionally, pursuant to sections 501.211(2) and 501.2105, Florida Statutes,
`
`Plaintiff and the Class make claims for damages, attorney’s fees and costs.
`
`VII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference verbatim the allegations set
`
`forth in the preceding paragraphs.
`
`63.
`
`Defendant has negligently misrepresented the Products as safer or at least
`
`comparable to traditional cigarettes when in fact, they are not because they are far more potent
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 16 of 23
`
`
`and addictive than other types of cigarettes available to consumers.
`
`64.
`
`Defendant has omitted a material fact to the public, including Plaintiff and Class
`
`Members, about its Products. Through advertising not related to the label, Defendant has failed
`
`to disclose the material fact that a single JUUL e-cigarette contains the same amount of nicotine
`
`as an entire pack of traditional cigarettes and that its Products are more potent and addictive
`
`than tobacco cigarettes. Prior to 2018, defendant failed to warn that the Products contained any
`
`nicotine at all.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant knew or should have known that the representations were false and
`
`that said omissions would induce Plaintiff and Class Members to purchase the Products.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers, including the Class members,
`
`reasonably relied on Defendant’s representations set forth herein, and, in reliance thereon,
`
`purchased the Products.
`
`67.
`
`The reliance by Plaintiff and Class members was reasonable and justified in that
`
`Defendant appeared to be, and represented itself to be, a reputable business.
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiff and class members would not have been willing to pay for Defendant’s
`
`Products if they knew the Products were more harmful and addictive than other cigarettes
`
`available for purchase.
`
`69.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of these misrepresentations, Plaintiff and
`
`Members of the Class were induced to purchase and consume Defendant’s Products, and have
`
`suffered damages to be determined at trial in that, among other things, they have been deprived
`
`of the benefit of their bargain in that they bought Products that were not what they were
`
`represented to be, and have spent money on Products that had less value than the price they
`
`paid for the Products.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-20328-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2022 Page 17 of 23
`
`
`VIII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
`MERCHANTIBILITY
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference verbatim the allegations set
`
`forth in the preceding paragraphs.
`
`71.
`
`Defendant has represented that the Products are safer or at least comparable to
`
`ordinary cigarettes; therefore, Defendant impliedly warranted that the Products are no more
`
`harmful or addictive than other cigarettes and are fit for ordinary use. The Products, however,
`