6010-3724505 admin@juzlab.net
0 Items
The wildly popular e-cig startup Juul is valued at $15 billion, but it faces a growing backlash of lawsuits and investigations

The wildly popular e-cig startup Juul is valued at $15 billion, but it faces a growing backlash of lawsuits and investigations

Pax Labs

For a slim device that looks like a USB stick, the Juul e-cig packs a powerful punch. Each refillable insert contains twice the nicotine as a pack of cigarettes.

American vapers have embraced the device: The Juul now represents nearly 71% of the entire e-cig market. Last month, sales of the devices surged 738%.

But despite the ballooning popularity of its vapes, Juul Labs – a Silicon Valley startup recently valued at $15 billion – is facing a growing backlash.

Several state and federal investigations and a handful of consumer lawsuits highlight concerns about the Juul’s health effects and its worrisome popularity among teens. The Massachusetts Attorney General is investigating whether Juul violated state consumer-protection laws by failing to keep minors from buying its products, and the Food and Drug Administration recently cracked down on sales of the Juul to minors.

On top of those concerns, the city of San Francisco recently banned flavored tobacco products like the Juul, a move public-health researchers and leading philanthropists like Michael Bloomberg have said they hope other cities follow.

A startup that’s booming

juul e-cigarette


Behind the unassuming, aging brick facade of a shipping warehouse in San Francisco’s Dogpatch neighborhood, Juul Labs is growing exponentially. Its five floors are packed with employees. Staff crowd the halls, spill onto balconies for meetings, and squat on the building’s sweaty top floor.

Juul’s US staff has tripled in the last six months, and more growth is coming. Juul has plans to open offices in 19 more locations across the country, including big cities like Boston and Chicago and smaller ones like Des Moines, Iowa and Manchester, New Hampshire. The company is expanding internationally, too. After launching in London earlier this month, Juul has plans to expand to three more countries.

The company has the money to do it. After scoring a $15 billion valuation that puts Juul in the ranks of startups like Pinterest, Lyft, and Snap Inc., Juul Labs raised $650,000 within just two days.

But as Juul has grown, government groups, nonprofits, and public-health experts have started sounding alarms, calling out the Juul for being addictive and uniquely appealing to teens.

Teen ‘Juuling’ could be the ‘genie you can’t put back in the bottle’

woman vaping vape e-cig


The first signs of trouble came from high school bathrooms. In small groups, students began gathering to “Juul” (the verb the product has spawned) under clouds of creme-brulee-scented vapor. Some carried the devices into class, where they’d sneak pulls from Juuls hidden inside the bodies of emptied Sharpie pens.

Worried teachers brought their concerns to principals, who called on public-health researchers to visit campuses and discuss the risks of nicotine.

Then some of those teachers looked at YouTube, and found the platform was full of videos made by teens showing themselves sneaking Juuls into class and vaping on the sly – sometimes even in front of teachers.

Using hashtags like #JuulGang and #VapeNation, teens boasted on social media about the number of devices they could use at once. Some appeared to be linked to viral hashtags that Juul Labs had used in a 2015 advertising campaign when its device launched.

Juul maintains that it does not want teens to use its devices and claims its products are designed solely for adult smokers looking to transition to less harmful devices. The company has also said that sales of its devices did not take off until at least two years after the 2015 campaign was launched.

“Juul is a company that was started by smokers with an objective to switch smokers to non-combustible products,” Ashley Gould, Juul’s chief administrative officer, told Business Insider in March.

A Juul Labs spokesperson also told Business Insider that the company has been working with social media platforms to remove Juul-related content that involves young people, and has deleted more than 4,000 vape-related posts from Instagram and Facebook collectively.

But experts say these moves have come too late.

“This is really the genie you can’t put back in the bottle,” Matthew Myers, the president of the nonprofit Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, told Business Insider.

Snowballing evidence of vaping’s health risks

marijuana vaporizer vaping vape

Eduardo Munoz/Reuters

Alarmed by the prevalence of e-cigs, researchers have increasingly started studying the health impacts of vaping. So far, evidence suggests that although inhaling vapor is healthier than breathing in burned tobacco, e-cigs come with their own health concerns.

Chief among those issues is e-cigs’ high concentration of nicotine. This may be part of the reason why teens who vape are seven times more likely to smoke regular cigarettes than young people who never use e-cigs.

Ana Rule, a professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University, said the makers of these devices fail to address “the increased risk to this huge market they are creating among teenagers and young adults that never have smoked, and would have never even considered smoking” had they not vaped.

Researchers are also not convinced that e-cigs actually help adult smokers quit. So far, the evidence suggests they don’t. In January, a study in the journal The Lancet found that e-cigs were linked with “significantly less quitting” among smokers. Several months later, a study in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that e-cig users were less likely than non-vapers to abstain from tobacco use over six months. And a study published in the journal PLOS One this month found no evidence that vaping helped adult smokers quit.

“E-cigarettes are widely promoted as a smoking cessation aid but for some, they actually make it harder to quit, so most people end up doing both,” Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine and the director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at UCSF, told Business Insider.

Nicholas Chadi, a clinical pediatrics fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital, spoke about the Juul at the American Society of Addiction Medicine’s annual conference in April.

“After only a few months of using nicotine, [these teens] describe cravings, sometimes intense ones. Sometimes they also lose their hopes of being able to quit,” Chadi said.

For these reasons, several nonprofit anti-tobacco agencies have come out in recent months in strong opposition to the Juul, including the nonprofit Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the California Department of Public Health.

Mounting legal and ethical challenges

juul e-cig vape pen california prop e poster

California Department of Public Health

These scientific findings are being used in a snowballing number of legal and regulatory challenges against Juul.

In April, the FDA launched an investigation into Juul’s marketing practices to see if the company targeted teens.

In a letter to the company, the agency wrote: “Widespread reports of youth use of Juul products are of great public health concern and no child or teenager should ever use any tobacco product. Juul products may have features that make them more appealing to kids and easier to use, thus causing increased initiation and/or use among youth.”

Since April, Juul consumers have also filed several lawsuits against the company – most of them on behalf of teens – for what they allege are deceptive marketing practices that didn’t clearly outline how addictive nicotine is.

Then in June, voters in San Francisco approved a ban on flavored tobacco products that includes Juul cartridges, called Juul Pods.

“Most scientists believe flavorings are used to target teenagers into becoming users,” Rule told Business Insider. “There are of course many other factors such as marketing and peer-pressure, but when you look at the flavoring names, one has to wonder.”

San Francisco has led the nation with similar types of initiatives in the past, such as its 2007 ban on plastic bags, which went statewide in 2014 and has since been copied in 13 other US cities.

Finally, just this week, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey launched a probe to find out whether Juul had marketed its products directly to young people in a way that could violate consumer protections in the state.

“Just when teen cigarette use has hit a record low, Juuling and vaping have become an epidemic in our schools with products that seem targeted to get young people hooked on nicotine,” Healey said in a statement. “I am investigating Juul … to keep these highly addictive products out of the hands of children.”

Juul’s rapid fundraising suggests that many investors aren’t deterred by these challenges, but others have said they’re leery for ethical reasons.

“Selling drug addiction with unknown causes isn’t something I want to be associated with,” Villi Iltchev, a partner with San Francisco-based investment firm August Capital, told Business Insider.

Villi said he used to smoke, but quit five years ago.

“Would I have switched from smoking to the Juul? Hell yes,” he said. “But in terms of kids, they’re starting from scratch. Being addicted as a teen, your probability of quitting is so low. It’s part of you.”

If you’re a Juul or Pax employee with a story to share, email this reporter at ebrodwin@businessinsider.com.

An embattled mayo startup is slamming Jaden Smith’s brand for allegedly putting its own labels on another company’s products

An embattled mayo startup is slamming Jaden Smith’s brand for allegedly putting its own labels on another company’s products

Hollis Johnson/Business Insider
  • Jaden Smith’s bottled water company, Just Goods, is suing an embattled vegan mayo startup that recently changed its name from Hampton Creek to Just.
  • In a lawsuit, Smith’s company claims Hampton Creek’s rebrand violates a 2014 trademark agreement between the two companies.
  • Just (formerly Hampton Creek) is now alleging that Smith’s company put Just Goods labels on products that weren’t theirs as a means of boosting their claim to the name.
  • A video shared with Business Insider shows a representative from Just (formerly Hampton Creek) peeling off what it claims is a fake label from Just Goods on a bottle of olive oil made in Spain by another company.

The name represents fairness.

But this week, a legal battle over deception between two companies called “Just” began to simmer. One is a maker of vegan mayo, cookie dough, and salad dressings, formerly called Hampton Creek. The other is Jaden Smith’s Just Goods, which makes bottled water packaged in paper and allegedly had plans to sell other items, like olive oil.

Smith’s company sued Just last year for alleging that it violated the terms of an agreement between both companies which dictated when each could use the name “Just.” But most recently, Just shot back, alleging in counterclaims that Just Goods created fake products – in some cases, by allegedly sticking a fake label on another company’s items – in an attempt to bolster their claims to the “Just” label.

‘Misrepresentations and deceptions’

just label video


In the most recent court filing, representatives from the vegan mayo startup alleged that Smith’s company used “misrepresentations and deceptions” in a “hurried attempt to fabricate” products that would support its claims to the “Just” brand name.

One of those alleged deceptions is a package of olive oil which the vegan mayo company claims was not made by Smith’s company.

In a video shared with Business Insider, presented in court, and described in the counterclaim, a representative from Just (formerly Hampton Creek) can be seen ordering the olive oil, which is listed on Smith’s Just Goods website. In the video, the representative is seen peeling off a label that reads “Just Olive Oil” and revealing a different label hidden underneath that instead reads “ONLY: Spanish Extra Virgin Olive Oil.”

That label bears the same name and appearance as a product offered by a company called Lycompany, whose “ONLY: Spanish Extra Virgin Olive Oil” products are sold online through vendors like Amazon.

Ken Hertz, the attorney representing Smith’s Just Goods company, said in a statement emailed to Business Insider that the video and the vegan mayo company’s claims are a distraction meant to “besmirch Just Goods.” Hertz also told BuzzFeed News that its labeling of the olive oil was a “common practice as companies develop their businesses,” adding that having one company manufacture a product for another is “perfectly acceptable with the Trademark Office and in the marketplace.”

A representative for Lycompany told Business Insider in an email that it was unaware that its products were allegedly being used this way.

The beginning: A peaceful agreement

Just Mayo's 2014 lineup.

Just Mayo’s 2014 lineup.
Biz Carson/Business Insider

The olive oil debacle was not the spark that ignited the controversy between the two Just brands.

The apparent brand war appears to have begun as early as 2014 when then the company then known as Hampton Creek – which calls its leading product Just Mayo – entered into a trademark agreement with Smith’s Just Goods that outlined the terms under which each company could use the word “just.”

Just Goods’ demands in its 2017 complaint included that the mayo startup stop using the name “Just, Inc.” and adjust its use of the word “Just” in branding,” as well as pay damages suffered by Just Goods as a result of that branding.

From ‘Hampton Creek’ to ‘Just’

Beginning last June (roughly three years after the trademark agreement), Hampton Creek abandoned the Hampton Creek label and began calling itself simply “Just.”

Just's rebrand.

Just’s rebrand.

From a product design perspective, the name change could be seen as strategic. For years, Hampton Creek had been mired in controversies, ranging from a since-dropped federal inquiry into allegations of artificially-inflated sales figures to an investigation into whether its egg-free mayo product could legally be called mayonnaise.

Instead of containers of Just Mayo with the word “just” written in small, cursive letters and the word “mayo” in big, bold print in the center, newer packages condiment flipped the arrangement, showing the word “just” followed by a period in big letters and the word “mayo” (or another type of dressing, like “ranch”) underneath in smaller print.

To an outsider, it may have seemed like a somewhat logical leap.

But Smith’s company didn’t think so.

Several weeks after Hampton Creek’s partial rebrand, Smith’s company, Just Goods, sued the company and its CEO, Josh Tetrick. Smith’s company argued that Tetrick’s rebrand violated the terms of their 2014 agreement.

At the time of the initial lawsuit, Tetrick’s company was still known as Hampton Creek, according to the state of California; its Just rebrand wasn’t officially recognized by the Secretary of State until February of this year.

Just(ice) can’t be rushed

In the counterclaim, representatives from Tetrick’s company allege that Smith’s company hastily added an “innovation” tab to its website to house fabricated items beyond bottled water that would make its claim to the “Just” label appear justified.

“Moreover, examining the nature of the food products it now claimed to be selling – namely, olive oil and snack foods – along with their labeling and the manner in which [Smith’s company] has sold them, reveals that [Smith’s company] rushed to make ‘token use’ of Just in connection with these goods – a technique the law forbids as a means of securing prior rights in a trademark. As but one example, [Smith’s company’s] ‘use’ of Just on olive oil turns out to be little more than slapping a sticker on to a third party’s olive oil product, even though JGI touts this product as an ‘innovation,’” the counterclaim states.

Hertz, the attorney representing Smith’s Just Goods company, said these claims are a distraction meant to “deflect from [Tetrick’s company’s] intentional breach” of the 2014 trademark agreement.

“Hampton Creek (now calling itself Just Inc.) is trying to steal the ‘Just’ trademark and take advantage of Jaden’s fame and his team’s hard work,” Hertz further claimed. “Just Goods will not stand for it.”

Pin It on Pinterest