Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Ill.: Price discrimination suit against Juul dismissed, (Apr 10, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

A previous order was based on a misrepresentation of facts.

The federal district court in Chicago has dismissed a suit alleging secondary-line price discrimination against Juul Labs, Inc. and HS Wholesale, Limited (HSW) under the Robinson-Patman Act brought by Power Buying Dealers USA, Inc. (PBD). Although the court had granted a motion by PBD to reconsider in February 2026, the court dismissed the suit following Juul’s showing that PBD misrepresented facts regarding the closure of discovery in its second motion for reconsideration. As the court found that a showing of bad faith by PBD it denied leave to amend and reinstated the previous dismissal of the suit with prejudice (Power Buying Dealers USA, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-03154 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2026)).

Juul manufactures electronic nicotine vapor sources as alternatives to combustible cigarettes (e-cigarettes). PBD provides procurement systems consultancy services and assistance. PBD purchases e-cigarettes for distribution by a network of convenience stores. HS Wholesale, Ltd. (HSW) also purchases e-cigarettes from Juul.

PBD filed a lawsuit against Juul and HSW, alleging that Juul’s pricing discount terms, crediting policies, and furnishing of promotional materials to HSW injured competition between PBD and HSW in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. This allegation was a so-called “secondary-line” injury, that is, injury to competition between Juul's customers. When the granted leave for PDB to file a third amended complaint, the court stated that no further amendments would be permitted.

In June 2025, the court granted Juul’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint because the complaint had no allegations of a relevant geographic market. PBD then moved for leave to amend the complaint a fourth time, or to reinstate its second amended complaint, which the court construed as a motion to reconsider. In February 2026, the court granted PBD’s motion to reconsider. Juul then filed a motion to reconsider the court’s order denying the reconsideration of dismissal of PBD’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

The court agreed with Juul and HSW’s motion which demonstrated that PBD materially misrepresented the status of fact discovery. On multiple occasions, PBD represented that discovery was complete. For example, at a hearing on April 6, 2026, PBD asserted that fact discovery was closed, stating that Defendants “didn’t ask for any depositions” and only issued one interrogatory during the additional limited discovery they were permitted to take. The court found evidence provided by Defendants contradicts this: they intended to depose a Rule 30(b)(6) witness from PBD, and had an ongoing discovery dispute regarding PBD’s responses. Wrote the court, “The factual record was subject to change, and therefore, so were PBD’s theories and allegations.”

The court determined that “falsely claiming that fact discovery was fully closed” and that there would not be “anything new” was an indication of bad faith. As there was a misrepresentation of the facts which had previously formed the basis for the court’s prior decision to grant leave to amend, the court revisited its ruling, denied leave to amend, and affirmed its dismissal.

The Case is No. 1:21-cv-03154.

Judge: Coleman, S.

Attorneys: Gary A. Grasso (Grasso Law, PC) for Power Buying Dealers USA, Inc. James T. Mckeown (Foley & Lardner LLP) for Juul Labs, Inc. James A. Morsch (Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP) for HS Wholesale, Ltd.

Companies: Power Buying Dealers USA, Inc.; Juul Labs, Inc.; HS Wholesale, Ltd.

Cases: Antitrust IllinoisNews