Philip Morris International Inc.PM
Philip Morris International Inc. Commitments Disclosure
Contingencies:
Tobacco and/or Nicotine-Related Litigation
Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened against us, and/or our subsidiaries, and/or our indemnitees in various jurisdictions. Our indemnitees include distributors, licensees, and others that have been named as parties in certain cases and that we have agreed to defend, as well as to pay costs and some or all of judgments, if any, that may be entered against them. Pursuant to the terms of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. ("Altria") and PMI, PMI will indemnify Altria and Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), a U.S. tobacco subsidiary of Altria, for tobacco product claims based in substantial part on products manufactured by PMI or contract manufactured for PMI by PM USA, and PM USA will indemnify PMI for tobacco product claims based in substantial part on products manufactured by PM USA, excluding tobacco products contract manufactured for PMI.
It is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending cases against us and our subsidiaries. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco or nicotine-related litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation.
Damages claimed in some of the tobacco-related litigation are significant and, in the case of the "Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation" described below, could range into the billions of U.S. dollars. The variability in pleadings in multiple jurisdictions, together with the actual experience of management in litigating claims, demonstrate that the monetary relief that may be specified in a lawsuit bears little relevance to the ultimate outcome. While, as discussed below, we have to date been largely successful in defending tobacco-related litigation, litigation is subject to uncertainty. Additionally, as reported further below, beginning in March 2024, litigation related to oral nicotine products was filed against us and our subsidiaries before certain courts in the United States.
We and our subsidiaries record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. At the present time, except as stated otherwise in this Note 16. Contingencies, it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome in a case may occur. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred.
It is possible that our consolidated financial statements, including our results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of certain pending litigation. Nevertheless, although litigation is subject to uncertainty, we and each of our subsidiaries named as a defendant believe, and each has been so advised by counsel handling the respective cases, that we have valid defenses to the litigation pending against us, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts. All such cases are, and will continue to be, vigorously defended. However, we and our subsidiaries may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if we believe it is in our best interests to do so.
After assessing the information available to it, except as stated otherwise in this Note 16. Contingencies, (i) management has not concluded that it is probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending cases mentioned in this Note 16. Contingencies; (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss for any of these cases; and (iii) accordingly, no estimated loss has been accrued in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes in these cases, if any.
Combustible tobacco products litigation
Since 1995, more than 600 combustible tobacco product-related cases, including smoking and health, label-related, health care cost recovery, and public civil actions, have been filed by governmental entities or individual plaintiffs, or on behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs against a PMI entity. All cases resolved by final and non-appealable liability judgment have been terminated in our favor and only a small number of cases remain pending. The pending cases include seven health care cost recovery cases, one public civil action, and individual cases. These do not include nine proposed class actions and ten health care cost recovery cases that have been released pursuant to the CCAA Plan of PMI's wholly owned subsidiary in Canada, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., that will be formally dismissed in due course, and are no longer reported here. The amounts at issue in the pending individual cases would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements, including our results of operations, cash flows, or financial position. Of the pending combustible tobacco product-related cases, one individual case was initially decided in favor of plaintiffs, and remains on appeal. Final resolution in the amount of the verdict in such case would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements, including our results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.
Pending claims related to combustible tobacco products generally fall within the following categories:
Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation: These cases, brought by governmental and non-governmental plaintiffs, seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures allegedly caused by tobacco products. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent design, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of a voluntary undertaking or special duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, defective product, failure to warn, sale of cigarettes to minors, and claims under statutes governing competition and deceptive trade practices. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief including compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate cause, remoteness of injury, failure to state a claim, adequate remedy at law, “unclean hands” (namely, that plaintiffs cannot obtain equitable relief because they participated in, and benefited from, the sale of cigarettes), and statute of limitations.
As of December 31, 2025, excluding the cases that will be dismissed pursuant to the CCAA Plan described above, there were 7 health care cost recovery cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees in Brazil (1), Korea (1) and Nigeria (5), compared with 17 such cases on December 31, 2024 and 17 such cases on December 31, 2023.
In the health care cost recovery case in Brazil, The Attorney General of Brazil v. Souza Cruz Ltda., et al., Federal Trial Court, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, filed May 21, 2019, we, our subsidiaries, and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases in certain prior years, payment of anticipated costs of treating future alleged smoking-related diseases, and moral damages. Defendants filed answers to the complaint in May 2020.
In the first health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Lagos State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Lagos State, Lagos, Nigeria, filed March 13, 2008, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases over the past several decades, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases in the future, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. We are in the process of making challenges to service and the court's jurisdiction. Currently, the case is stayed in the trial court pending the appeals of certain co-defendants relating to service objections.
In the second health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Kano State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Kano State, Kano, Nigeria, filed May 9, 2007, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases over the past several decades, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases in the future, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. We are in the process of challenging service and the court's jurisdiction. Currently, the case is stayed in the trial court pending the appeals of certain co-defendants relating to service objections.
In the third health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Gombe State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Gombe State, Gombe, Nigeria, filed October 17, 2008, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases over the past several decades, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases in the future, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. In February 2011, the court ruled that the plaintiff had not complied with the procedural steps necessary to serve us. As a result of this ruling, plaintiff must re-serve its claim. We have not yet been re-served.
In the fourth health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Oyo State, et al., v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Oyo State, Ibadan, Nigeria, filed May 25, 2007, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases over the past several decades, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases in the future, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. We challenged service as improper. In June 2010, the court ruled that plaintiffs did not have leave to serve the writ of summons on the defendants and that they must re-serve the writ. We have not yet been re-served.
In the fifth health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Ogun State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Ogun State, Abeokuta, Nigeria, filed February 26, 2008, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases over the past several decades, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases in the future, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. In May 2010, the trial court rejected our objections to the court's jurisdiction. We have appealed. Currently, the case is stayed in the trial court pending the appeals of certain co-defendants relating to service objections.
In the health care cost recovery case in Korea, the National Health Insurance Service v. KT&G, et. al., filed April 14, 2014, our subsidiary and other Korean manufacturers are defendants. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants concealed the health hazards of smoking, marketed to youth, added ingredients to make their products more harmful and addictive, and misled consumers into believing that Lights cigarettes are safer than regular cigarettes. The National Health Insurance Service seeks to recover damages allegedly incurred in treating 3,484 patients with small cell lung cancer, squamous cell lung cancer, and squamous cell laryngeal
cancer from 2003 to 2012. The trial court dismissed the case in its entirety on November 20, 2020. The appellate court granted plaintiff a de novo appeal in 2021 and, on January 15, 2026, dismissed plaintiff's claims and appeal. On February 4, 2026, plaintiff filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Korea.
Public Civil Actions: Claims have been filed either by an individual, or a public or private entity, seeking to protect collective or individual rights, such as the right to health, the right to information or the right to safety. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including product defect, concealment, and misrepresentation. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief including injunctive relief such as banning cigarettes, descriptors, smoking in certain places and advertising, as well as implementing communication campaigns and reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by public or private institutions.
As of December 31, 2025, there was one public civil action pending against our subsidiary in Venezuela (1), compared with one such case on December 31, 2024, and one such case on December 31, 2023.
In a public civil action in Venezuela, Federation of Consumers and Users Associations (“FEVACU”), et al. v. National Assembly of Venezuela and the Venezuelan Ministry of Health, Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, filed April 29, 2008, we were not named as a defendant, but the plaintiffs published a notice pursuant to court order, notifying all interested parties to appear in the case. In January 2009, our subsidiary appeared in the case in response to this notice. The plaintiffs purport to represent the right to health of the citizens of Venezuela and claim that the government failed to protect adequately its citizens' right to health. The claim asks the court to order the government to enact stricter regulations on the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. In addition, the plaintiffs ask the court to order companies involved in the tobacco industry to allocate a percentage of their “sales or benefits” to establish a fund to pay for the health care costs of treating smoking-related diseases. In October 2008, the court ruled that plaintiffs have standing to file the claim and that the claim meets the threshold admissibility requirements. In December 2012, the court admitted our subsidiary and a subsidiary of British American Tobacco plc as interested third parties. In February 2013, our subsidiary answered the complaint. On February 27, 2024, the Attorney General of Venezuela filed, on behalf of defendants, a motion to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution.
Smoke-Free Products-Related Litigation
Claims have been filed against PMI and one or more subsidiaries related to ZYN nicotine pouches. These cases were filed either on behalf of an individual plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class of individuals, or on behalf of a municipal entity. Plaintiffs assert a variety of common law and statutory claims, and seek various forms of relief, including monetary and equitable relief.
In the first case, a putative class action, Kelly v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., filed on March 19, 2024, before United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, plaintiff alleges, among other things, addiction to nicotine resulting from the use of ZYN nicotine pouches (the "Kelly class action"). The complaint named PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC as defendants. Plaintiff purports to represent classes comprised of (i) all persons who purchased ZYN products in the United States, (ii) all residents of Florida who purchased ZYN products, and (iii) all residents of Florida who, at the time of their use of ZYN products, were under the age of 21, and who procured and used ZYN products. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants defectively designed ZYN products and sold them in an unreasonably unsafe and dangerous condition, marketed ZYN products to minors, and misrepresented or failed to warn consumers about information related to ZYN products, including information about health risks associated with these products. Plaintiff asserts strict liability design defect and failure to warn claims, as well as negligence and fraud claims and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, interest, and medical monitoring. On May 6, 2024, PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC filed motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On August 20, 2024, the court granted Swedish Match North America LLC’s motion to dismiss the fraud claim and plaintiff’s request for medical monitoring, but denied the motion to dismiss other claims, denied PMI’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, and granted plaintiff’s request to conduct jurisdictional discovery. On December 4, 2024, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC and added three additional entities as named defendants: Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc. On December 18, 2024, PMI, Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc., filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, and Swedish Match North America LLC filed a motion to dismiss the fraud claim. On March 19, 2025, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s fraud claim with prejudice but denied the motion to dismiss Swedish Match USA Inc. The Court also denied the motion to dismiss the three PMI defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendants filed their answers to plaintiff's amended complaint on April 2, 2025, and the case has moved to the discovery phase and will be consolidated with the other Florida cases (Palmer, Lendinara, and Friedman) for purposes of pre-trial discovery. The Court has set a deadline of June 26, 2026 for the completion of all fact and expert discovery and December 7, 2026 for the start of trial. On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint to add two additional named plaintiffs. Darryl Maultsby and Griffin Dykes, as well as a new claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Trade Act ("FDUPTA"). On October 14, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. On October 22, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FDUTPA claim. On December 12, 2025, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the FDUTPA claim. On December 23, 2025, defendants filed their answers to plaintiff's second amended complaint.
In the second case, a putative class action, Bates-Ferreira v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., filed March 29, 2024, before United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, plaintiff alleges, among other things, addiction to nicotine resulting from the use of ZYN nicotine pouches. The complaint named PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC as defendants. Plaintiff purports to represent classes comprised of (i) all persons who used ZYN products in the United States, (ii) all persons who used ZYN products in the United States while under the age of 18, (iii) all residents of California who used ZYN products, and (iv) all residents of California who used ZYN products while under the age of 18. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants made misrepresentations about ZYN products in their advertising and marketing, marketed ZYN products to minors, and misrepresented or failed to disclose to consumers information about ZYN products, including information about health risks associated with these products. Plaintiff asserts fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and breach of consumer protection, unfair competition and advertising statutes claims and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, attorney’s fees and expenses, interest and other applicable injunctive relief. On June 7, 2024, PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC filed motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, and Swedish Match North America LLC also filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the Kelly class action. On August 5, 2024, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claim against PMI without prejudice. On March 28, 2025, the Court granted Swedish Match North America LLC’s motion to stay the case, ordering that the case be stayed until the court in the Kelly case, described above, issues a ruling on any motion that the plaintiffs in that case might make to certify a class. At this time, no estimated loss has been accrued in the consolidated financial statements for this proceeding and we cannot determine the likelihood of loss, or reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, from this proceeding.
In the third case, an individual complaint, Palmer v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., filed April 3, 2024, before United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, plaintiff alleges, among other things, addiction to nicotine resulting from the use of ZYN nicotine pouches. The complaint named PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC as defendants. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants defectively designed ZYN products and sold them in an unreasonably unsafe and dangerous condition, marketed ZYN products to minors, and misrepresented or failed to warn consumers about information related to ZYN products, including information about health risks associated with these products. Plaintiff asserts strict liability design defect and failure to warn claims, as well as negligence and fraud claims, and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, interest, and medical monitoring. On June 3, 2024, PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC filed motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On August 20, 2024, the court granted Swedish Match North America LLC’s motion to dismiss the fraud claim and plaintiff’s request for medical monitoring, but denied the motion to dismiss other claims, denied PMI’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, and granted plaintiff’s request to conduct jurisdictional discovery. On December 4, 2024, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC and added three additional entities as named defendants: Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc. On December 18, 2024, PMI, Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc., filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, and Swedish Match North America LLC filed a motion to dismiss the fraud claim. On March 19, 2025, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the fraud claim with prejudice but denied the motion to dismiss Swedish Match USA Inc. The Court also denied the motion to dismiss the three PMI defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendants filed their answers to plaintiff’s amended complaint on April 2, 2025, and the case has moved to the discovery phase and will be consolidated with the other Florida cases (Kelly, Lendinara, and Friedman) for purposes of pre-trial discovery. The Court has set a deadline of June 26, 2026 for the completion of all fact and expert discovery and December 7, 2026 for the start of trial. On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint to add a new claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Trade Act ("FDUPTA"). On October 14, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. On October 23, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FDUTPA claim. On December 12, 2025, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the FDUTPA claim. On December 23, 2025, defendants filed their answers to plaintiff's second amended complaint.
In the fourth case, an individual complaint, Lendinara v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., filed July 30, 2024, before United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, plaintiff alleges, among other things, addiction to nicotine resulting from the use of ZYN nicotine pouches. The complaint named PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC as defendants. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants defectively designed ZYN products and sold them in an unreasonably unsafe and dangerous condition, marketed ZYN products to minors, and misrepresented or failed to warn consumers about information related to ZYN products, including information about health risks associated with these products. Plaintiff asserts strict liability design defect and failure to warn claims, as well as negligence and fraud claims, and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, interest, and medical monitoring. On September 19, 2024, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to apply its decisions on the motions to dismiss in Palmer to the Lendinara matter, including granting plaintiff’s request to conduct jurisdictional discovery and setting the same timeline for plaintiff to amend his complaint. On December 4, 2024, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC and added three additional entities as named defendants: Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc. On December 18, 2024, PMI, Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc., filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, and Swedish Match North America LLC filed a motion to dismiss the fraud claim. On March 19, 2025, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fraud claim with prejudice but denied the motion to dismiss Swedish Match USA Inc. The Court also denied the motion to dismiss the three PMI defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendants filed their answers to plaintiff’s amended
complaint on April 2, 2025, and the case has moved to the discovery phase and will be consolidated with the other Florida cases (Kelly, Palmer, and Friedman) for purposes of pre-trial discovery. The Court has set a deadline of June 26, 2026 for the completion of all fact and expert discovery and December 7, 2026 for the start of trial. On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint to add a new claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Trade Act ("FDUPTA"). On October 14, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. On October 23, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FDUTPA claim. On December 12, 2025, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the FDUTPA claim. On December 23, 2025, defendants filed their answers to plaintiff's second amended complaint.
In the fifth case, a putative class action, Norris v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., filed July 30, 2024, before United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, plaintiff alleges, among other things, addiction to nicotine resulting from the use of ZYN nicotine pouches. The complaint named PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC as defendants. Plaintiff purports to represent classes comprised of (i) all persons who used ZYN products in the United States, (ii) all persons who used ZYN products in the United States while under the age of 18, (iii) all residents of Florida who used ZYN products, and (iv) all residents of Florida who used ZYN products while under the age of 18. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants made misrepresentations about ZYN products in their advertising and marketing, marketed ZYN products to minors, and misrepresented or failed to disclose to consumers information about ZYN products, including information about health risks associated with these products. Plaintiff asserts unjust enrichment, and breach of consumer protection, unfair trade and advertising statutes claims and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, attorney’s fees and expenses, interest and other applicable injunctive relief. On September 24, 2024, PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC filed motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, and a motion to stay discovery. On October 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to Swedish Match North America LLC, which the Court ordered on October 3, 2024. On April 11, 2025, PMI filed a motion to stay the proceedings until the court in the Kelly case, described above, issues a ruling on any motion for class certification that the plaintiff in that case might bring. On June 13, 2025, the Court granted PMI's motion to stay until the court in the Kelly case issues a ruling on class certification. In light of the ruling on the motion to stay, the Court denied PMI's motion to dismiss without prejudice. At this time, no estimated loss has been accrued in the consolidated financial statements for this proceeding and we cannot determine the likelihood of loss, or reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, from this proceeding.
In the sixth case, an individual complaint, Friedman v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., filed April 2, 2025, before United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, plaintiff alleges, among other things, addiction to nicotine resulting from the use of ZYN nicotine pouches. The complaint named PMI, Swedish Match North America LLC, Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc. as defendants. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants defectively designed ZYN products and sold them in an unreasonably unsafe and dangerous condition, marketed ZYN products to minors, and misrepresented or failed to warn consumers about information related to ZYN products, including information about health risks associated with these products. Plaintiff asserts strict liability design defect and failure to warn claims, as well as a negligence claim, and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and interest. The defendants filed their answers to Plaintiffs’ complaint on May 5, 2025, and the case has moved to the discovery phase and will be consolidated with the other Florida cases (Kelly, Palmer, Lendinara, and Friedman) for purposes of pre-trial discovery. The Court has set a deadline of June 26, 2026 for the completion of all fact and expert discovery and December 7, 2026 for the start of trial. On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend her complaint to add a new claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Trade Act ("FDUPTA"). On October 14, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. On October 23, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FDUTPA claim. On December 12, 2025, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the FDUTPA claim. On December 23, 2025, defendants filed their answers to plaintiff's second amended complaint.
In the seventh case, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Philip Morris International Inc. et al, filed May 7, 2025, before the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, the City of Baltimore alleges that the defendants have violated the City of Baltimore’s Consumer Protection Ordinance by, among other things, marketing ZYN products in a deceptive manner. The complaint names PMI, Swedish Match North America LLC, and Swedish Match USA Inc. as defendants. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants marketed ZYN products to minors and misrepresented or failed to warn consumers about information related to ZYN products, including information about health risks associated with these products. Plaintiff asserts that defendants’ actions violate the prohibition on “unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices” in the Consumer Protection Ordinance and seeks monetary and injunctive relief. The Complaint was served on Defendants on June 9, 2025. On July 7, 2025, Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On August 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. That motion is now fully briefed and remains pending. Defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the complaint. At this time, no estimated loss has been accrued in the consolidated financial statements for this proceeding and we cannot determine the likelihood of loss, or reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, from this proceeding.
In the eighth case, an individual complaint, Maultsby v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al, filed August 5, 2025, before United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, plaintiff alleged, among other things, addiction to nicotine resulting from the use of ZYN nicotine pouches. The complaint named PMI, Swedish Match North America LLC, Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc. as defendants. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that defendants defectively designed ZYN products and sold them in an unreasonably unsafe and dangerous condition, marketed ZYN products to minors, and
misrepresented or failed to warn consumers about information related to ZYN products, including information about health risks associated with these products. Plaintiff asserted strict liability design defect and failure to warn claims, as well as a negligence claim, and sought compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and interest. On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff in the Kelly case moved to amend the complaint in that matter to add Darryl Maultsby as a named plaintiff in the class action proceeding. On October 24, 2025, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit without prejudice.
In the ninth case, an individual complaint, Dykes v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al, filed August 5, 2025, before United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, plaintiff alleged, among other things, addiction to nicotine resulting from the use of ZYN nicotine pouches. The complaint named PMI, Swedish Match North America LLC, Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc. as defendants. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that defendants defectively designed ZYN products and sold them in an unreasonably unsafe and dangerous condition, marketed ZYN products to minors, and misrepresented or failed to warn consumers about information related to ZYN products, including information about health risks associated with these products. Plaintiff asserted strict liability design defect and failure to warn claims, as well as a negligence claim, and sought compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and interest. On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff in the Kelly case moved to amend the complaint in that matter to add Griffin Dykes as a named plaintiff in the class action proceeding. On October 24, 2025, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit without prejudice.
In the tenth case, Austin Siegert v. Philip Morris International Inc. et al, filed September 26, 2025, before the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, plaintiff alleges, among other things, addiction to nicotine resulting from the use of ZYN nicotine pouches. The complaint named PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC as defendants. Plaintiff purports to represent classes comprised of (i) all persons who purchased ZYN in the United States and (ii) a subclass of persons who purchased ZYN in New York. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants misrepresented that ZYN is tobacco-free; misled consumers regarding ZYN’s nicotine strength and addictive potential; and deployed misleading advertisements geared towards those under the legal age. Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law § 349 (deceptive and unfair trade practices); violations of New York General Business Law § 350 (misleading advertising); violations of state consumer protection statutes; and breaches of the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and expenses, prejudgment interest, and declaratory and injunctive relief. On October 30, 2025, defendants filed a motion to stay the proceedings until the court in the Kelly case, described above, issues a ruling on any motion for class certification that the plaintiff in that case might bring. On November 3, 2025, the Court granted the motion to stay until the court in the Kelly case issues a ruling on class certification. At this time, no estimated loss has been accrued in the consolidated financial statements for this proceeding, and we cannot determine the likelihood of loss, or reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, from this proceeding.
Other Litigation
In July 2020, the Public Prosecutor’s office of Rome, Italy, notified our Italian subsidiary, Philip Morris Italia S.r.l. (“PM Italia”), as well as three former or current employees and a former external consultant of PM Italia in July and March 2020, respectively, that it concluded a preliminary investigation against them for alleged contravention of anti-corruption laws and related disruption of trade freedom. The Public Prosecutor alleges that the individuals involved promised certain personal favors to government officials from January to July of 2018 in exchange for favorable treatment for PM Italia, and that PM Italia lacked appropriate organizational controls to prevent the alleged actions by the individuals. On September 21, 2020, the Public Prosecutor issued his indictment and referred the matter to the court. At the preliminary hearing held on May 11, 2021, the judge decided to refer all charges/defendants (including our affiliate) to trial. The first trial hearing took place on September 22, 2021. British American Tobacco Italia S.p.a. has filed a civil claim against PM Italia claiming vicarious liability for the alleged wrongdoings of its former or current employees and seeking EUR50 million (approximately $59 million) in damages. After various postponements, the trial before the court of first instance started on September 25, 2023, and will continue into 2026. The judge has scheduled a final hearing for April 29, 2026, with a decision expected thereafter. PM Italia believes it has strong defenses to the charges against it and will defend them vigorously.
Following an October 2020 final decision by the highest court in Brazil in tax litigation pertaining to overpayments of certain indirect taxes, our affiliate modified the methodology for calculation of the deduction applicable to the indirect taxes at issue. The Brazilian Tax Authority objected to such methodology and, on December 3, 2024, served our affiliate with notice of an assessment alleging underpayments of these indirect taxes during the 2020 fiscal year, for approximately BRL 137 million ($27 million). On March 31, 2025, the Brazilian Tax Authority served our affiliate with notice of a similar assessment alleging underpayments of indirect taxes during the 2021 fiscal year, for approximately BRL 211 million ($41 million). Our affiliate believes it is probable that the Brazilian Tax Authority will issue assessments alleging underpayment of indirect taxes for subsequent fiscal years. We disagree with the position of the Brazilian Tax Authority and will defend vigorously.
On December 21, 2023, we were informed that Future Technology K.K. (“FTKK”) filed an application with Tokyo Customs against Sojitz Corporation (“Sojitz”), Philip Morris Japan Limited’s (“PMJL”) importer and distributor, due to alleged patent infringement of JP7299432. FTKK sought an order to stop the importation of TEREA consumables. FTKK withdrew its Customs application
following the issuance of an opinion from expert advisors to Customs that the patent at issue was not infringed. The proceeding is now concluded.
In July and August 2024, respectively, FTKK filed two patent infringement actions against Sojitz, for alleged infringement of two patents by TEREA consumables. After receiving an indicative view from the Tokyo District Court that FTKK's patents were not infringed, FTKK withdrew its claims and the matters were terminated in September 2025.
Between November 2024 and December 2025, FTKK filed twelve additional patent infringement actions against Sojitz for alleged infringement of twelve new FTKK patents by TEREA and SENTIA consumables. FTKK asserts a claim for damages in these actions. Between February 2025 and July 2025, FTKK filed eight patent infringement actions against Sojitz seeking a preliminary injunction. The patents FTKK asserted in each of these actions were previously asserted by FTKK in earlier filed (and still pending) actions seeking monetary damages. PMJL is obligated to indemnify Sojitz for damages and has intervened in all of these matters. On November 24, 2025, the Court provided its indicative opinion that FTKK was not entitled to a preliminary injunction in one of the pending actions, and on January 21, 2026, the Court issued a written decision rejecting FTKK's preliminary injunction petition on the basis that the accused products do not infringe FTKK's patent. On December 18, 2025, FTKK filed a notice indicating that it was withdrawing its claim in the related damages action, and the action was terminated on December 25, 2025. Merits proceedings in the remaining matters are at various stages.
On November 27, 2024, we were informed that FTKK filed another application with Tokyo Customs against Sojitz, on the basis of alleged infringement of another FTKK patent. FTKK sought an order to stop the importation of TEREA and SENTIA consumables. In April 2025, Tokyo Customs issued a formal notification rejecting FTKK's request for an import injunction on the basis that the accused products do not infringe FTKK's patent. On June 5, 2025, we were informed that FTKK filed a new application with Tokyo Customs against Sojitz, on the basis of alleged infringement of another FTKK patent. FTKK sought an order to stop the importation of TEREA and SENTIA consumables. On November 4, 2025, Tokyo Customs issued a formal notification rejecting FTKK's request for an import injunction on the basis that the accused products do not infringe FTKK's patent. We were informed on January 22, 2026, that FTKK has filed a request for re-investigation of the matter with Tokyo Customs. On December 16, 2025, we were informed that FTKK filed a new application with Tokyo Customs against Sojitz, on the basis of alleged infringement of another FTKK patent. FTKK is seeking an order to stop the importation of TEREA and SENTIA consumables. At this time, FTKK is not seeking any monetary damages or costs. PMJL entered an appearance in the proceeding as an interested party and filed an opposition to FTKK’s application on January 27, 2026.
PMJL intends to vigorously defend the matters commenced by FTKK and take steps to mitigate disruption, if any, that could result from FTKK’s claims.
Other patent challenges are pending in various jurisdictions.
We are also involved in additional litigation arising in the ordinary course of our business. While the outcomes of these proceedings are uncertain, management does not expect that the ultimate outcomes of other litigation, including any reasonably possible losses in excess of current accruals, will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 6, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 6, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 8, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Feb 10, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Feb 11, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Feb 9, 2021 | |
| 2019 | Feb 7, 2020 | |
| 2018 | Feb 7, 2019 | |
| 2017 | Feb 13, 2018 | |
| 2016 | Feb 14, 2017 | |
| 2015 | Feb 17, 2016 | |
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.