Health Law Daily Wrap Up, TOBACCO—E.D.N.Y.: Court dismisses defective design claim against R.J. Reynolds, (Aug 21, 2026)

By Susan L. Smith, JD, MA

The claimant failed to allege that an alternative design was acceptable to consumers or as satisfying as regular cigarettes.

A federal district court in New York granted a tobacco company’s request to dismiss the complaint of a man who brought claims alleging strict liability for defective design, fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, deceptive practices, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability against the tobacco company. The man filed a pro se complaint in state court on November 3, 2025, and amended the complaint on January 8, 2026. His claims were based on the tobacco company’s alleged advertising and sale of Newport menthol cigarettes that he smoked. The company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (Reynolds), also sold Next brand cigarettes that had a less addictive level of nicotine and no menthol. The court determined that the man’s defective design claim failed to propose an alternative design acceptable to consumers, a requirement under New York law. The court also found that the man’s fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation claim and deceptive practice claim were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA). Finally, the court dismissed the man’s breach of warranty of merchantability claim because his claim had no factual detail. Therefore, the court granted Reynolds’ motion to dismiss and also dismissed the amended complaint (Insanally v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 25-CV-6134 (AMD) (PK) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2026)).

Background. The man, who began smoking Newport menthol cigarettes in 1998 when he was 14 years old, was diagnosed with lung disease caused by his smoking in April 2025. The man alleged that Reynolds intentionally engineered Newport cigarettes to deliver a level of nicotine in each cigarette that was confirmed by studies to cause addiction. He also claimed that Reynolds added menthol as an anesthetic to cool the throat, mask harshness, and enable deeper, longer inhalation, increasing toxin deposition. The man also alleged that Reynolds chose to sell Newport cigarettes because addiction drove repeat sales. The man also contended that Reynolds test-marketed and sold the Next brand cigarette that contained a less addictive level of nicotine and no menthol, proving a feasible, less-addictive alternative. The man stated that he saw two posters advertising Newport cigarettes that had the Surgeon General’s warning in small print at the bottom of each poster. The man alleged that these advertisements falsely communicated that Newport was a benign, health-compatible pleasure product and omitted any mention of engineered addictiveness or deeper toxin inhalation caused by menthol.

Defective design. The court stated that to plead a design defect claim, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the product as designed posed a substantial likelihood of harm; (2) it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner; and (3) the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injury. The first two prongs are referred to as the risk-utility balancing test, which is used to determine whether a product is defective or unreasonably dangerous. A product is defective under the risk-utility test if a reasonable person, who knew of the defect at the time the product was manufactured, would have concluded that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner. However, courts have found that cigarettes do not fit comfortability within the risk-utility analysis because they are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. Under New York law, plaintiffs bringing design defect claims involving cigarettes are required to allege that the alternative design was as acceptable to consumers or as satisfying as regular cigarettes.

The man claimed that Reynolds’ Newport design was defective because it contained a level of nicotine known to cause addiction and contained menthol, which enabled deeper inhalation of toxins. He alleged that a feasible, less-addictive alternative existed, that the risk of addiction outweighed any utility gained from higher nicotine, and that the defect proximately caused his lung disease. He further asserted that the Next brand, which had a lower level of nicotine and no menthol, was the feasible, less addictive alternative and that its design would transform, rather than redesign, the Newport product. The court stated that the man did not claim that the proposed alternative design was acceptable to consumers, as required by New York law. Rather, the man’s complaint suggested that Reynolds tested and sold the Next brand, but that consumers rejected it in favor of the Newport brand. Thus, the man failed to allege that a feasible alternative design was equally acceptable to consumers.

Fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation. Reynolds requested the court to dismiss the man’s fraud claim on preemption grounds, for failure to state a claim, and because the claim was preempted by the FCLAA. The FCLAA was enacted by Congress in 1965 in response to the Surgeon General’s determination that cigarette smoking is harmful to health. In 1969, Congress added two provisions to broaden the preemption provision. The Supreme Court held that the FCLAA preempts both state common law and statutory causes of action based on a failure to warn of smoking and health risks in cigarette advertising. The court found that the only allegations that supported the man’s fraud claim were that Reynolds did not disclose the risks of smoking Newport cigarettes, including the risk of addiction and the risk of deeper toxin inhalation, in two poster advertisements, both of which are included the FCLAA-mandated Surgeon General warning. Further, the man did not allege that Reynolds made false statements or made statements through channels other than advertising. Thus, the court found that the man’s fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation claim was preempted by the FCLAA and dismissed it.

Deceptive practices. The man alleged that Reynolds’ consumer-oriented campaign was materially misleading and that he suffered injury, and he appeared to claim that Reynolds should be liable for failing to warn consumers of risks associated with Newport cigarettes. The court determined, however, that the man failed to provide any facts to support his assertions that Reynolds violated New York General Business Law, Section 349, for deceptive practices. Thus, the court concluded that his claims were preempted by Section 5(b) the FCLAA.

Breach of warranty of merchantability. The court explained that the implied warranty was not breached if the cigarettes were minimally safe when used in the customary, usual, and reasonably foreseeable manner. The man alleged that the goods failed the ordinary-purpose test because a cigarette engineered to create compulsive use is not fit for ordinary consumption. However, the man did not allege that the cigarettes were not smokable or otherwise not of merchantable quality. Thus, the court determined that the claim had no factual detail and could not survive a motion to dismiss.

The case is No. 25-CV-6134 (AMD) (PK).

Judge: Donnelly, A.

Attorneys: Shane Insanally, pro se. Andrew Lane Dubin (Bruner Powell Wall & Mullins LLC) for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Companies: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Cases: CaseDecisions AdvertisingNews TobaccoNews NewYorkNews