Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1098-7 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 30175
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1098-7 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 3 PagelD# 30175
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1098-7 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 3 PagelD# 30175
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1098-7 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 30176
`
`
`
`FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
`PROTECTING AMERICA’S CONSUMERS
`
`Administrative Law Judge Dismisses FTC
`Antitrust Complaint against Altria Group and
`JUUL Labs, Inc.
`
`
`ÿ
ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ
`
ÿ
ÿ
`fghijÿlgmnÿohpjÿ
` !"#$"%ÿ'()ÿ'*''
`ÿ
`ÿ
` +,ÿ,-.-/0-
`
`
`
`
`12345ÿK>!$<<>q#" $#ÿ>CÿA>DJ 9898>7A>DJ 9898>7I "H "r>"8s>79$:ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
`
`67ÿ$7ÿ67898$:ÿ; <8=8>7ÿ$77>#7< ?ÿ>7ÿ !@ÿ'()ÿ'*'')ÿAB8 Cÿ/?D878=9"$98E ÿ.$FÿG#?H ÿ;@ÿI8<B$ :ÿAB$JJ ::ÿ?8=D8== ?ÿ9B
`$7989"#=9ÿ<B$"H =ÿ87ÿ$ÿ<>DJ:$879ÿ8==# ?ÿ!%ÿ9B ÿ ? "$:ÿK"$? ÿA>DD8==8>7ÿ=9$CCÿ$H$87=9ÿ9>!$<<>ÿ<>DJ$7%ÿ/:9"8$ÿL">#J)
`67<@ÿ$7?ÿ : <9">78<ÿ<8H$" 99 ÿD$M "ÿGNN.ÿ.$!=)ÿ67<@
`KB ÿ KAO=ÿ/J"8:ÿ'*'*ÿ<>DJ:$879ÿ$:: H ?ÿ9B$9ÿ/:9"8$ÿ$7?ÿG##:ÿ 79 " ?ÿ$ÿ= "8 =ÿ>Cÿ$H" D 79=)ÿ87<:#?87Hÿ/:9"8$O=ÿ$<P#8=898>7
`>Cÿ$ÿQRSÿ=9$M ÿ87ÿGNN.)ÿ9B$9ÿ :8D87$9 ?ÿ<>DJ 9898>7ÿ87ÿE8>:$98>7ÿ>CÿC ? "$:ÿ$7989"#=9ÿ:$F=@ÿ/<<>"?87Hÿ9>ÿ9B ÿ<>DJ:$879)ÿ9B8=
`= "8 =ÿ>Cÿ$H" D 79=ÿ87E>:E ?ÿ/:9"8$ÿ< $=87Hÿ9>ÿ<>DJ 9 ÿ87ÿ9B ÿN@0@ÿD$"M 9ÿC>"ÿ<:>= ?T=%=9 Dÿ : <9">78<ÿ<8H$" 99 =ÿ87
`" 9#"7ÿC>"ÿ$ÿ=#!=9$798$:ÿ>F7 "=B8Jÿ879 " =9ÿ87ÿGNN.)ÿ!%ÿC$"ÿ9B ÿ?>D87$79ÿJ:$% "ÿ87ÿ9B$9ÿD$"M 9@
`G#?H ÿAB$JJ ::ÿ<>7<:#? ?ÿ9B$9ÿA>DJ:$879ÿA>#7= :ÿC$8: ?ÿ9>ÿ? D>7=9"$9 ÿ!>9Bÿ9B ÿ$798<>DJ 9898E ÿ CC <9=ÿ>Cÿ9B ÿ7>7T
`<>DJ 9 ÿJ">E8=8>7)ÿ$7?ÿ$ÿ" $=>7$!: ÿJ">!$!8:89%ÿ9B$9ÿ/:9"8$ÿF>#:?ÿB$E ÿ<>DJ 9 ?ÿ87ÿ9B ÿ T<8H$" 99 ÿD$"M 9ÿ87ÿ9B ÿ7 $"
`C#9#" )ÿ9B">#HBÿD$"M 987Hÿ$ÿ<>DJ 987HÿJ">?#<9ÿ87? J 7? 79:%)ÿ>"ÿ9B">#HBÿ<>::$!>"$98>7ÿ>"ÿ$<P#8=898>7@ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`G#?H ÿAB$JJ ::ÿ$:=>ÿ7>9 ?ÿ9B$9U
`=87< ÿ/:9"8$ÿ$<P#8" ?ÿ89=ÿ=9$M ÿ87ÿGNN.)ÿ9B ÿ<:>= ?T=%=9 Dÿ T<8H$" 99 ÿD$"M 9ÿB$=ÿ! <>D ÿD>" ÿ<>DJ 9898E )ÿ7>9
`: ==@ÿÿ9B ÿ E8? 7< ÿC$8: ?ÿ9>ÿJ">E ÿ9B$9ÿ/:9"8$O=ÿ" D>E$:ÿ>Cÿ89=ÿ>F7ÿ T<8H$" 99 ÿJ">?#<9=ÿC">Dÿ9B ÿD$"M 9ÿ=#!=9$798$::%
`B$"D ?ÿ<>DJ 9898>7ÿ>"ÿ8=ÿ:8M :%ÿ9>ÿ?>ÿ=>ÿ87ÿ9B ÿC#9#" @ÿÿ
`A>DJ:$879ÿA>#7= :ÿC$8: ?ÿ9>ÿJ">E ÿ9B$9ÿ9B ÿ9"$7=$<98>7ÿF$=ÿ$ÿE8>:$98>7ÿ>Cÿ0 <98>7ÿRÿ>Cÿ9B ÿ ? "$:ÿK"$?
`A>DD8==8>7ÿ/<9)ÿ0 <98>7ÿtÿ>Cÿ9B ÿ0B "D$7ÿ/<9)ÿ>"ÿ0 <98>7ÿuÿ>Cÿ9B ÿA:$%9>7ÿ/<9@
`VWXÿZ[[X\]^ÿ_`abX^^cÿKB ÿG#?H O=ÿ67898$:ÿ; <8=8>7ÿ8=ÿ=#!d <9ÿ9>ÿ" E8 Fÿ!%ÿ9B ÿC#::ÿ ? "$:ÿK"$? ÿA>DD8==8>7ÿ>7ÿ89=ÿ>F7
`D>98>7)ÿ>"ÿ$9ÿ9B ÿ" P# =9ÿ>Cÿ$7%ÿJ$"9%)ÿ$7?ÿA>DJ:$879ÿA>#7= :ÿB$E ÿC8: ?ÿ$ÿe>98< ÿ>Cÿ/JJ $:@ÿKB ÿ67898$:ÿ; <8=8>7ÿF8::
`! <>D ÿ9B ÿC87$:ÿ? <8=8>7ÿ>Cÿ9B ÿA>DD8==8>7ÿQ*ÿ?$%=ÿ$C9 "ÿ89ÿ8=ÿ= "E ?ÿ#J>7ÿ9B ÿJ$"98 =ÿ#7: ==)ÿJ"8>"ÿ9>ÿ9B$9ÿ?$9 )
`
`
`
`TITTY
`
`February 24, 2022
`
`Share This Page
`
`
`TAGS: Tobacco | Bureau of Competition | Competition | Merger | Horizontal
`
`In an Initial Decision announced on Feb. 24, 2022, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed the
`antitrust charges in a complaint issued by the Federal Trade Commission staff against tobacco companyAltria Group,
`Inc. and electronic cigarette maker JUUL Labs,Inc.
`
`The FTC’s April 2020 complaint alleged that Altria and Juul entered a series of agreements, including Altria’s acquisition
`of a 35% stake in JUUL, that eliminated competition in violation of federal antitrust laws. According to the complaint, this
`series of agreements involved Altria ceasing to compete in the U.S. market for closed-system electronic cigarettes in
`return for a substantial ownership interest in JUUL, by far the dominant playerin that market.
`
`Judge Chappell concluded that Complaint Counselfailed to demonstrate both the anticompetitive effects of the non-
`compete provision, and a reasonable probability that Altria would have competedin the e-cigarette market in the near
`future, through marketing a competing product independently, or through collaboration or acquisition.
`
`Judge Chappell also notedthat:
`
`* since Altria acquired its stake in JUUL, the closed-system e-cigarette market has become more competitive, not
`less.
`
`* the evidencefailed to prove that Altria’s removalof its own e-cigarette products from the market substantially
`harmed competitionoris likely to do so in the future.
`
`* Complaint Counselfailed to prove that the transaction wasa violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade
`Commission Act, Section 1 of the ShermanAct, or Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
`
`The Appeals Process. The Judge’s Initial Decision is subject to review by the full Federal Trade Commission on its own
`motion, or at the request of any party, and Complaint Counsel havefiled a Notice of Appeal. The Initial Decision will
`becomethefinal decision of the Commission 30 daysafterit is served upon the parties unless,prior to that date,
`
`
`fghijÿlgmnÿohpjÿ
` !"#$"%ÿ'()ÿ'*''
`ÿ
`ÿ
` +,ÿ,-.-/0-
`
`
`
`
`12345ÿK>!$<<>q#" $#ÿ>CÿA>DJ 9898>7A>DJ 9898>7I "H "r>"8s>79$:ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
`
`67ÿ$7ÿ67898$:ÿ; <8=8>7ÿ$77>#7< ?ÿ>7ÿ !@ÿ'()ÿ'*'')ÿAB8 Cÿ/?D878=9"$98E ÿ.$FÿG#?H ÿ;@ÿI8<B$ :ÿAB$JJ ::ÿ?8=D8== ?ÿ9B
`$7989"#=9ÿ<B$"H =ÿ87ÿ$ÿ<>DJ:$879ÿ8==# ?ÿ!%ÿ9B ÿ ? "$:ÿK"$? ÿA>DD8==8>7ÿ=9$CCÿ$H$87=9ÿ9>!$<<>ÿ<>DJ$7%ÿ/:9"8$ÿL">#J)
`67<@ÿ$7?ÿ : <9">78<ÿ<8H$" 99 ÿD$M "ÿGNN.ÿ.$!=)ÿ67<@
`KB ÿ KAO=ÿ/J"8:ÿ'*'*ÿ<>DJ:$879ÿ$:: H ?ÿ9B$9ÿ/:9"8$ÿ$7?ÿG##:ÿ 79 " ?ÿ$ÿ= "8 =ÿ>Cÿ$H" D 79=)ÿ87<:#?87Hÿ/:9"8$O=ÿ$<P#8=898>7
`>Cÿ$ÿQRSÿ=9$M ÿ87ÿGNN.)ÿ9B$9ÿ :8D87$9 ?ÿ<>DJ 9898>7ÿ87ÿE8>:$98>7ÿ>CÿC ? "$:ÿ$7989"#=9ÿ:$F=@ÿ/<<>"?87Hÿ9>ÿ9B ÿ<>DJ:$879)ÿ9B8=
`= "8 =ÿ>Cÿ$H" D 79=ÿ87E>:E ?ÿ/:9"8$ÿ< $=87Hÿ9>ÿ<>DJ 9 ÿ87ÿ9B ÿN@0@ÿD$"M 9ÿC>"ÿ<:>= ?T=%=9 Dÿ : <9">78<ÿ<8H$" 99 =ÿ87
`" 9#"7ÿC>"ÿ$ÿ=#!=9$798$:ÿ>F7 "=B8Jÿ879 " =9ÿ87ÿGNN.)ÿ!%ÿC$"ÿ9B ÿ?>D87$79ÿJ:$% "ÿ87ÿ9B$9ÿD$"M 9@
`G#?H ÿAB$JJ ::ÿ<>7<:#? ?ÿ9B$9ÿA>DJ:$879ÿA>#7= :ÿC$8: ?ÿ9>ÿ? D>7=9"$9 ÿ!>9Bÿ9B ÿ$798<>DJ 9898E ÿ CC <9=ÿ>Cÿ9B ÿ7>7T
`<>DJ 9 ÿJ">E8=8>7)ÿ$7?ÿ$ÿ" $=>7$!: ÿJ">!$!8:89%ÿ9B$9ÿ/:9"8$ÿF>#:?ÿB$E ÿ<>DJ 9 ?ÿ87ÿ9B ÿ T<8H$" 99 ÿD$"M 9ÿ87ÿ9B ÿ7 $"
`C#9#" )ÿ9B">#HBÿD$"M 987Hÿ$ÿ<>DJ 987HÿJ">?#<9ÿ87? J 7? 79:%)ÿ>"ÿ9B">#HBÿ<>::$!>"$98>7ÿ>"ÿ$<P#8=898>7@ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`G#?H ÿAB$JJ ::ÿ$:=>ÿ7>9 ?ÿ9B$9U
`=87< ÿ/:9"8$ÿ$<P#8" ?ÿ89=ÿ=9$M ÿ87ÿGNN.)ÿ9B ÿ<:>= ?T=%=9 Dÿ T<8H$" 99 ÿD$"M 9ÿB$=ÿ! <>D ÿD>" ÿ<>DJ 9898E )ÿ7>9
`: ==@ÿÿ9B ÿ E8? 7< ÿC$8: ?ÿ9>ÿJ">E ÿ9B$9ÿ/:9"8$O=ÿ" D>E$:ÿ>Cÿ89=ÿ>F7ÿ T<8H$" 99 ÿJ">?#<9=ÿC">Dÿ9B ÿD$"M 9ÿ=#!=9$798$::%
`B$"D ?ÿ<>DJ 9898>7ÿ>"ÿ8=ÿ:8M :%ÿ9>ÿ?>ÿ=>ÿ87ÿ9B ÿC#9#" @ÿÿ
`A>DJ:$879ÿA>#7= :ÿC$8: ?ÿ9>ÿJ">E ÿ9B$9ÿ9B ÿ9"$7=$<98>7ÿF$=ÿ$ÿE8>:$98>7ÿ>Cÿ0 <98>7ÿRÿ>Cÿ9B ÿ ? "$:ÿK"$?
`A>DD8==8>7ÿ/<9)ÿ0 <98>7ÿtÿ>Cÿ9B ÿ0B "D$7ÿ/<9)ÿ>"ÿ0 <98>7ÿuÿ>Cÿ9B ÿA:$%9>7ÿ/<9@
`VWXÿZ[[X\]^ÿ_`abX^^cÿKB ÿG#?H O=ÿ67898$:ÿ; <8=8>7ÿ8=ÿ=#!d <9ÿ9>ÿ" E8 Fÿ!%ÿ9B ÿC#::ÿ ? "$:ÿK"$? ÿA>DD8==8>7ÿ>7ÿ89=ÿ>F7
`D>98>7)ÿ>"ÿ$9ÿ9B ÿ" P# =9ÿ>Cÿ$7%ÿJ$"9%)ÿ$7?ÿA>DJ:$879ÿA>#7= :ÿB$E ÿC8: ?ÿ$ÿe>98< ÿ>Cÿ/JJ $:@ÿKB ÿ67898$:ÿ; <8=8>7ÿF8::
`! <>D ÿ9B ÿC87$:ÿ? <8=8>7ÿ>Cÿ9B ÿA>DD8==8>7ÿQ*ÿ?$%=ÿ$C9 "ÿ89ÿ8=ÿ= "E ?ÿ#J>7ÿ9B ÿJ$"98 =ÿ#7: ==)ÿJ"8>"ÿ9>ÿ9B$9ÿ?$9 )
`
`
`
`TITTY
`
`February 24, 2022
`
`Share This Page
`
`
`TAGS: Tobacco | Bureau of Competition | Competition | Merger | Horizontal
`
`In an Initial Decision announced on Feb. 24, 2022, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed the
`antitrust charges in a complaint issued by the Federal Trade Commission staff against tobacco companyAltria Group,
`Inc. and electronic cigarette maker JUUL Labs,Inc.
`
`The FTC’s April 2020 complaint alleged that Altria and Juul entered a series of agreements, including Altria’s acquisition
`of a 35% stake in JUUL, that eliminated competition in violation of federal antitrust laws. According to the complaint, this
`series of agreements involved Altria ceasing to compete in the U.S. market for closed-system electronic cigarettes in
`return for a substantial ownership interest in JUUL, by far the dominant playerin that market.
`
`Judge Chappell concluded that Complaint Counselfailed to demonstrate both the anticompetitive effects of the non-
`compete provision, and a reasonable probability that Altria would have competedin the e-cigarette market in the near
`future, through marketing a competing product independently, or through collaboration or acquisition.
`
`Judge Chappell also notedthat:
`
`* since Altria acquired its stake in JUUL, the closed-system e-cigarette market has become more competitive, not
`less.
`
`* the evidencefailed to prove that Altria’s removalof its own e-cigarette products from the market substantially
`harmed competitionoris likely to do so in the future.
`
`* Complaint Counselfailed to prove that the transaction wasa violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade
`Commission Act, Section 1 of the ShermanAct, or Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
`
`The Appeals Process. The Judge’s Initial Decision is subject to review by the full Federal Trade Commission on its own
`motion, or at the request of any party, and Complaint Counsel havefiled a Notice of Appeal. The Initial Decision will
`becomethefinal decision of the Commission 30 daysafterit is served upon the parties unless,prior to that date,
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1098-7 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 30177
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1098-7 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 3 PagelD# 30177
`Complaint Counselperfect their appeal by filing an Appeal Brief or the Commission places the case on its own docketfor
`review.
`
`Contact Information
`
`MEDIA CONTACT:
`
`Betsy Lordan
`Office of Public Affairs
`
`
`The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more
`about how competition benefits consumersorfile an antitrust complaint. For the latest news and resources,follow the
`FTC on social media, subscribe to press releases and read our blog.
`
` ÿ
`
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
` !"#$"ÿ&!' ()#"* !
`
`
` !"#$"ÿ&!' ()#"* !
`
`
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
`
ÿ
`
`
ÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿÿ
ÿ
`
`ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
`
`
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
` ÿ ÿÿ ÿ
` ÿ ÿÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
`
ÿ ÿ
` ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
`
`
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ
` ÿ
`+,-./ÿ1234/145ÿ
`
` ÿ
`+,-./ÿ1234/145ÿ
`
ÿ6
`7889:;ÿ=8ÿ>?@A9:ÿB88C9DE
`FGFHIFJHIKGK
`
`202-326-3707
`
`
`
`
`7889:;ÿ=8ÿ>?@A9:ÿB88C9DE
`FGFHIFJHIKGK
`
`202-326-3707
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
