British American Tobacco Must Face Class-Action Lawsuit Over 'Natural' Cigarette Labels, Appeals Court Rules

A U.S. appeals court has revived a major class-action lawsuit against British American Tobacco (BAT), ruling that the company must face claims it misled consumers into believing its Natural American Spirit cigarettes were safer than competing brands. The divided decision allows litigation to proceed on behalf of consumers in 12 states who allege they overpaid for the product.

Court Reinstates 'Safer Cigarette' Claims

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, overturned a lower court's refusal to grant class-action status to the primary claims. The lawsuit, originally reported by Reuters, alleges that BAT's U.S. subsidiaries, including Reynolds American and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco, deceptively used terms like "100% Additive-Free" and "Natural" on packaging.

Plaintiffs argue these labels falsely conveyed that the cigarettes were healthier, causing them to overpay. The court found that a disclaimer on the packaging—stating that the absence of additives "does NOT mean a safer cigarette"—was a factual dispute to be decided at trial, not a barrier to class certification.

Details of the Ruling

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Veronica Rossman said the lower court wrongly concluded that the damages model was unworkable and had prematurely addressed the merits of the case. The ruling reinstates the "safer cigarette" lawsuit on behalf of consumers in the following 12 states:

Ad

• California
• Colorado
• Florida
• Illinois
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• Ohio
• Washington

The appeals court also upheld the certification of a separate class action for consumers who purchased menthol-flavored cigarettes in eight of those states, based on the argument that menthol is an additive.

Dissent Signals Potential for Supreme Court Appeal

In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich argued that neither class should have been certified. He raised concerns that the damages model could allow "uninjured" consumers who never read the labels to collect damages and suggested the case "likely warrants Supreme Court review."

This dissent signals a potential path for BAT to appeal the decision to the nation's highest court. The ruling is a significant legal setback for the tobacco giant, exposing it to prolonged litigation and the risk of substantial damages. A spokesperson for the tobacco companies declined to comment on the pending litigation, according to the original report.