Judge Allows Amended Vape Class Action Lawsuit
A California federal judge ruled that direct vape purchasers may revise their conspiracy lawsuit against Shenzhen Smoore Technology.
Updated on Oct. 16, 2026 in Criminal Justice
Live Poll
Should federal courts more strictly enforce antitrust laws against international manufacturers of consumer electronics?
A federal judge in California has granted direct purchasers of vapes the opportunity to amend their existing class action complaint. The plaintiffs allege that Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. and its authorized distributors engaged in an illegal horizontal conspiracy.
Why it matters
The court's decision allows plaintiffs to further substantiate their claims of a per se illegal horizontal conspiracy. This ruling keeps the litigation active by giving the buyers a chance to bolster their arguments against the manufacturer and its distribution network.
A federal court in California has formally ruled to allow an amendment to a class action complaint. The legal proceedings remain active as plaintiffs work to provide necessary support for their claims.
The players
Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co.
This company is a manufacturer of vaping products currently named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit regarding alleged anti-competitive behavior.
The details
The plaintiffs are seeking to demonstrate that Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. acted in coordination with its distributors to form an illegal horizontal conspiracy. The judge has required the filing of an amended complaint to provide more substantial evidence for these antitrust allegations.
Timeline
October 15, 2026: A federal judge issued a ruling regarding the class action complaint.
Legal Context
This litigation occurs under the shadow of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits horizontal conspiracies that restrict market competition. The case highlights how courts manage the high evidentiary threshold required to sustain such claims against global supply chain networks.
The progress of this litigation may eventually affect market competition and the pricing of vaping products in California. Consumers should watch for future court filings to see how these allegations of distributor collusion impact the regional supply chain.
The takeaway
This ruling represents a procedural step that forces plaintiffs to refine their legal arguments before the case can move toward trial. It underscores the difficulty of proving complex conspiracy allegations without specific, actionable evidence of collusion.
Further reading
For more background on legal proceedings and court activity in the state, visit the California Criminal Justice section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Mlex.
Live Poll
Should federal courts more strictly enforce antitrust laws against international manufacturers of consumer electronics?
