Joseph Hart 19 December 2025

 

The language wars against tobacco continue, but this time the forum is not some WHO presentation, but an attempted class action lawsuit by plaintiff Kovadis Palmer against the makers of ZYN nicotine pouches.

Palmer v. ZYN

The Palmer v. Philip Morris International Inc. and Swedish Match North America LLC is back in the news. As some of you might recall, it was first filed in April 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The original argument put forth by Kovadis Palmer suggests that ZYN marketed their product as “tobacco-free”, which he felt somehow implied a lower risk of addiction, and consequently met the high standard of common law fraud.

Palmer and his team tried to hoodwink the judge into believing that something that was derived from tobacco could not be considered tobacco-free. That’s right, by isolating the habit-forming chemical from tobacco, and making a product that contained only nicotine, he felt he’d been tricked. The judge felt it didn’t satisfy the specifics of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), so the court dismissed those counts in August 2024 and March 2025.

But Palmer and his team would not be dissuaded.

Another go

The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires a plaintiff to plead the particular “who, what, when, where, and how” of their allegations. When Palmer’s original claim was laughed out of court, he turned to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), precisely because it has a lower threshold.

PMI and Swedish Match argued that this claim was a mere reheat of the previously rejected common-law case. However, this time, the judge allowed it to proceed.

Does the case have merit?

Even in its new incarnation, the case is thin, for a few different reasons.

#1. Tobacco-free

Pouches don’t have tobacco leaf, shredded tobacco, or combustible tobacco. Just because the product is derived from tobacco, it does not mean that it is tobacco. This distinction is very well-known and clear to any reasonable person and not an attempt to mislead anyone.

#2. The addiction risk is disclosed

Regulations required ZYN pouches and marketing to display clear nicotine‑addiction warnings. The complaint acknowledges the existence of these warnings, but somehow still alleges deception. Wild.

#3. Causation and actual damages

It’s going to be hard for Palmer to prove that there was deception that caused him loss or damage. He voluntarily purchased ZYN, despite clear warnings about potential addiction. His financial losses are attributable to these voluntary purchases of further ZYN pouches.

What’s more, unfairness under FDUTPA requires a substantial consumer injury that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits. Pouches don’t contain smoke or combustible tobacco. As such, they are a classic smoking harm-reduction product.

If companies are punished for steering consumers toward safer products while complying with age and warning-label regulations, it creates an insane and illogical liability for manufacturers.

#4. Prior dismissals

While the two prior dismissals should not prejudice the case, they do demonstrate the shakiness of the plaintiff’s narrative. The fact is that Palmer could not show:

  • What exactly was said or shown (the misrepresentation)?
  • Who said it?
  • When and where the plaintiff saw it.
  • How it changed the plaintiff’s behaviour (reliance) and caused loss.

If they couldn’t nail down something substantive in the fraud claims, I don’t see what they are going to add this time. The health warnings alone are devastating to Palmer’s case, and the “tobacco-free” language games are ridiculous because the law does not require companies to mirror regulatory jargon about “tobacco‑derived nicotine” when everyday speech distinguishes “tobacco products” from purified nicotine in a pouch.

Final thoughts

There is clear fraud and deception afoot in the Palmer v. ZYN, but it’s coming from the plaintiff’s side. What this case comes down to is a man buying a product that was labelled as addictive and regretting the fact that he became addicted to the same product.