A federal judge in Florida has ruled that key claims in two class action lawsuits against Philip Morris and its subsidiary Swedish Match, the makers of Zyn nicotine pouches, can move forward. The lawsuits allege the companies deceptively market Zyn, particularly to young people, while downplaying addiction risks.
Court Upholds Core Allegations
In a March 19 decision, U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas largely denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. While a claim of fraudulent concealment was dismissed for lacking sufficient detail (with plaintiffs given a chance to amend), the court upheld significant allegations. These include claims related to design defects, failure to warn consumers about potential risks, and negligence in the product's design and marketing.
The judge also confirmed the Florida federal court's jurisdiction over the case, rejecting Philip Morris' arguments against it based on the companies' substantial business activities, including marketing and selling Zyn, within the state.
Plaintiffs Allege Deceptive Practices and Addiction
The lawsuits, brought by consumers Zachary Kelly and Kovadis Palmer, argue that Zyn pouches are marketed using appealing flavors to attract young users. They further allege the companies falsely position Zyn as a safe alternative to smoking or vaping. Plaintiffs contend the pouches contain high levels of pharmaceutical-grade nicotine designed to create and sustain addiction, posing long-term health risks.
The lawsuits state that Zyn's nicotine levels exceed those found in approved nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), contradicting any claims of it being a cessation device. Kelly's filing highlights nicotine's high addictive potential, comparing it to illicit drugs, and emphasizes the vulnerability of young users, stating, "Nine out of ten nicotine users start by the age of 18." Plaintiffs claim they were unaware of these dangers and now suffer from nicotine addiction and related injuries.
Philip Morris has stated it is reviewing the ruling and plans to "vigorously defend" against the remaining claims. This ruling follows similar allegations in a previous class action filed last year.
