Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various United States and foreign jurisdictions against Altria and certain of our subsidiaries, including PM USA and NJOY, as well as our indemnitees. Various types of claims may be raised in these proceedings, including product liability, unfair trade practices, antitrust, income tax liability, contraband shipments, patent infringement, employment matters, environmental matters, claims alleging violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), claims for contribution and claims of competitors, shareholders or distributors. Legislative action, such as changes to tort law, also may expand the types of claims and remedies available to plaintiffs.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty, and it is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending or future cases. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco-related or other litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. Damages claimed in some tobacco-related and other litigation are or can be significant and, in certain cases, have ranged in the billions of dollars. The variability in pleadings in multiple jurisdictions, together with the actual experience of management in litigating claims, demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be specified in a lawsuit bears little relevance to the ultimate outcome. In certain cases, plaintiffs claim that defendants’ liability is joint and several. In such cases, we may face the risk that one or more co-defendants decline or otherwise fail to participate in the bonding required for an appeal or to pay their proportionate or jury-allocated share of a judgment. As a result, under certain circumstances, we may have to pay more than our proportionate share of any bonding- or judgment-related amounts. Furthermore, in those cases where plaintiffs are successful, we also may be required to pay interest and attorneys’ fees.

Although PM USA historically has been able to obtain required bonds or relief from bonding requirements in order to prevent plaintiffs from seeking to collect judgments while adverse verdicts have been appealed, there remains a risk that such relief may not be obtainable in all cases. This risk has been substantially reduced given that 47 states and Puerto Rico limit the dollar amount of bonds or require no bond at all. However, tobacco litigation plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of Florida’s bond cap statute in several cases, and plaintiffs may challenge state bond cap statutes in other jurisdictions as well. Such challenges may include the applicability of state bond caps in federal court. States, including Florida, also may seek to repeal or alter bond cap statutes through legislation. Although we cannot predict the outcome of such challenges, it is possible that our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome of one or more such challenges.

We record provisions in our condensed 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, while it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome in a case may occur, except to the extent discussed elsewhere in this Note 14. Contingencies: (i) management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending cases; (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in any of the pending cases; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in our condensed consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any. Litigation defense costs are expensed as incurred.

We have achieved substantial success in managing litigation. Nevertheless, litigation is subject to uncertainty and significant challenges remain. It is possible that our consolidated 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. We believe, and have 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. We have defended, and will continue to defend, vigorously against litigation challenges. However, we may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if we believe it is in our best interests to do so.


	For the Six Months Ended June 30,				For the Three Months Ended June 30,
(in millions)	2025		2024		2025		2024
Accrued liability for tobacco and health and certain other litigation items at beginning of period	$	96	$	346	$	118	$	364
Pre-tax charges for:
Tobacco and health and certain other litigation (1)	40		38		4		20
Shareholder derivative lawsuits (2)	—		—		—		—
JUUL-related settlements (3)	1		30		1		24
Related interest costs	4		—		—		—



Payments	(46)		(263)		(28)		(257)
Accrued liability for tobacco and health and certain other litigation items at end of period	$	95	$	151	$	95	$	151

The accrued liability for tobacco and health and certain other litigation items, including related interest costs, was included in accrued liabilities and other liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Pre-tax charges except for related interest costs were included in marketing, administration and research costs in our condensed consolidated statements of earnings. Pre-tax charges for related interest costs were included in interest and other debt expense, net in our condensed consolidated statements of earnings.

Since October 2004, PM USA has paid judgments and settlements (including related costs and fees) totaling approximately $1.1 billion and interest totaling approximately $246 million as of June 30, 2025. These amounts include payments for Engle progeny judgments (and related costs and fees) totaling approximately $452 million and related interest totaling approximately $62 million.

Types and Number of U.S. Cases: Claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs; (ii) health care cost recovery cases brought by governmental (both domestic and foreign) plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of profits; (iii) e-vapor cases alleging violation of RICO, fraud, failure to warn, design defect, negligence, antitrust, patent infringement and unfair trade practices; and (iv) other tobacco-related litigation described below. Plaintiffs’ theories of recovery and the defenses raised in tobacco-related litigation are discussed below.

(1) Includes as of July 28, 2025, 30 cases filed in Illinois, 16 cases filed in New Mexico, 90 cases filed in Massachusetts, 14 cases filed in Oregon, six cases filed in Hawaii and 15 non-Engle cases filed in Florida. Does not include individual smoking and health cases brought by or on behalf of plaintiffs in Florida state and federal courts following the decertification of the Engle class (these Engle progeny cases are discussed below in Smoking and Health Litigation - Engle Progeny Cases). Also does not include three Broin cases pending as of July 28, 2025. For further discussion of the Broin cases, see Other Smoking and Health Class Actions below.

(3) In May 2023, we reached agreement on terms to resolve the majority of the Multidistrict Litigation lawsuits, and, in March 2024, the court granted final approval of the settlement. Pending final dismissal of these cases, as of July 28, 2025, the remaining cases include 20 individual cases that opted out of the settlement, three class action lawsuits pending in Canada and one individual state court case relating to the Multidistrict Litigation. For further discussion of the Multidistrict Litigation settlement, see E-vapor Product Litigation below.

(4) Includes as of July28, 2025, one inactive smoking and health case alleging personal injury and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs and two inactive class action lawsuits alleging that use of the terms “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of warranty or violations of RICO.

International Tobacco-Related Cases: As of July 28, 2025, (i) Altria is named as a defendant in three e-vapor class action lawsuits in Canada; (ii) PM USA is a named defendant in 10 health care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also name Altria as a defendant; and (iii) PM USA and Altria are named as defendants in seven smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement (defined below) between Altria and PMI that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

Trial Results: Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases (separately discussed below), verdicts have been returned in 85 tobacco-related cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 53 of the 85 cases. Of the 32 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, 28 have reached final resolution.

Overview: Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in smoking and health cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action, violations of unfair trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes. Plaintiffs in the smoking and health cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statutes of limitations and preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

Non-Engle Progeny Litigation: Summarized below are the non-Engle progeny smoking and health cases pending in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and remain outstanding or cases concluded within the last 12 months where PM USA paid a final judgment. Charts listing certain verdicts for plaintiffs in the Engle progeny cases can be found in Smoking and Health Litigation - Engle Progeny Trial Results below.

Amaral: In March 2025, a jury in a Massachusetts state court returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“R.J. Reynolds”), awarding an aggregate of $4 million in compensatory damages against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds and $25 million in punitive damages against PM USA. PM USA has filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict and, if necessary, will appeal.

appealed the judgment, and the appeal remains pending. PM USA filed post-trial motions, which were denied, and PM USA has noticed an appeal from the final judgment and the trial court’s denial of the post-trial motions. The parties filed a motion to stay execution pending appeal, and the court has stayed execution of the final judgment pending conclusion of appellate activity.

Ricapor-Hall: In August 2023, a jury in a Hawaii state court returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, awarding $6 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages. In October 2023, the court entered judgment against PM USA for $11 million, having reduced the compensatory damages award to $3 million based on the jury’s finding on comparative fault and a set-off against plaintiff’s settlements with other defendants. PM USA filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict, which were denied in March 2024. In April 2024, PM USA filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay execution pending appeal, and the court has stayed execution of the final judgment pending resolution of PM USA’s appeal rights. PM USA’s appeal remains pending, and plaintiff has noticed a cross-appeal. In April 2025, the Hawaii Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s application to transfer the appeal to that Court from the Intermediate Court of Appeals.

Woodley: In February 2023, a jury in a Massachusetts state court returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, awarding $5 million in compensatory damages. There was no claim for punitive damages. Following the denial of PM USA’s post-trial motions, PM USA appealed the judgment to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, which affirmed the judgment in January 2025. Accordingly, we recorded a pre-tax charge of $5 million and paid the recorded amount in the first quarter of 2025.

Fontaine: In September 2022, a jury in a Massachusetts state court returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, awarding approximately $8 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. In September 2023, the court denied PM USA’s motion for a new trial and partially granted PM USA’s motion for remittitur, reducing the punitive damages award to $56 million. In December 2023, the court entered a final judgment awarding plaintiff $8 million in compensatory damages, $56 million in punitive damages and prejudgment interest. PM USA has noticed an appeal to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts. In May 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took jurisdiction over the appeal, and the appeal remains pending.

Engle Progeny Cases: Engle progeny cases are individual smoking and health lawsuits filed by Florida resident plaintiffs against one or more cigarette manufacturer defendants. The lawsuits arose following the Florida Supreme Court’s decertification of the class in Engle, et. al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et. al., a smoking and health class action lawsuit filed in Florida state court against multiple defendants, including PM USA, in which the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff class and the trial court assessed punitive damages against the defendants. In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court mandated that the trial court’s punitive damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial court be decertified and that members of the decertified class could file individual actions against defendants within one year of issuance of the mandate. Plaintiffs in Engle progeny lawsuits are entitled to rely on certain liability findings from the class action lawsuit, substantially reducing each plaintiff’s burden of proof. These liability findings stipulate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii) that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants’ cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that defendants concealed or omitted material information not otherwise known or available knowing that the material was false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the intention that smokers would rely on the information to their detriment; (vi) that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective; and (vii) that defendants were negligent.

Pending Engle Progeny Cases: The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases expired in January 2008, at which point a total of approximately 9,300 federal and state claims were pending. As of July 28, 2025, approximately 81 state court cases were pending against PM USA or Altria asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 97 state court plaintiffs. Because of a number of factors, including docketing delays, duplicated filings and overlapping dismissal orders, these numbers are estimates. Each federal Engle progeny case has been resolved.

Engle Progeny Trial Results: As of July 28, 2025, 147 federal and state Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts. Eighty-eight were returned in favor of plaintiffs, four of which have been reversed post-trial or on appeal and remain pending. Fifty-nine verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA, one of which have been reversed post-trial or on appeal and remain pending. In addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only some of which have resulted in new trials as of July 28, 2025.

Post-trial activity in a case can result in a final resolution that differs from the initial verdict. In many cases, parties have appealed either compensatory or punitive damages awards or both. Courts also have increased and decreased the amounts of compensatory damages juries have awarded, decreased the amounts of punitive damages juries have awarded, declared mistrials and vacated judgments, in whole or in part, with respect to compensatory and punitive damages awards. Initial verdicts have

been reversed in whole or in part on appeal or following retrial. Juries have returned verdicts in favor of or against PM USA awarding no damages. In cases where juries returned verdicts against PM USA awarding no damages, some trial courts have decided to award plaintiff damages notwithstanding the verdict. Cases also have been dismissed with or without prejudice before or after a verdict.

The charts below list the verdicts in and post-trial status of certain Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs. The first chart lists cases that are pending as of July 28, 2025 where PM USA has determined an unfavorable outcome is not probable and the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated, and the second chart lists cases that have concluded in the past 12 months. Unless otherwise noted for a particular case, the jury’s award for compensatory damages will not be reduced by any finding of plaintiff’s comparative fault. Further, the damages noted reflect adjustments based on post-trial or appellate rulings.

Plaintiff

Verdict Date

Defendant(s)

Court

Compensatory Damages(1)

Punitive Damages
(PM USA)

Post-Trial Status

Garcia

June 2024

PM USA

Miami-Dade

$2 million

$10 million

Appeals to the Third District Court of Appeal pending.

Chacon

October 2023

PM USA

Miami-Dade

<$1 million

Appeals to the Third District Court of Appeal pending.

Lipp

September 2021

PM USA

Miami-Dade

$15 million

$28 million

Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial. Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing pending.

McCall

March 2019

PM USA

Broward

<$1 million (<$1 million PM USA)

<$1 million

Appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal pending.

Other Smoking and Health Class Actions: Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases have purported to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state or states (although a few cases have purported to be nationwide in scope) and have raised addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 61 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), California (1), Delaware (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1). See Certain Other Tobacco-Related Litigation below for a discussion of “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” class action cases and medical monitoring class action cases pending against PM USA.

As of July 28, 2025, PM USA and Altria are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after smoking defendants’ cigarettes. In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked defendants’ cigarettes. In March 2019, all of these class actions were stayed as a result of three Canadian tobacco manufacturers (none of which is related to us) seeking protection under Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (which is similar to Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States). The companies entered into these proceedings following a Canadian appellate court upholding two smoking and health class action verdicts against those companies totaling approximately CAD $13 billion. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria and PMI, which provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

As of July 28, 2025, PM USA is named as a defendant in three cases brought by flight attendants against United States cigarette manufacturers seeking compensatory damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (“ETS”). The flight attendants allege that they are members of an ETS smoking and health class action in Florida that was settled in 1997 (Broin). The terms of the court-approved settlement in that case allowed class members to file individual lawsuits seeking compensatory damages but prohibited them from seeking punitive damages. Class members were prohibited from filing individual lawsuits after 2000 under the court-approved settlement. In July 2024, we reached agreement on terms to resolve approximately 627 individual Broin lawsuits. Accordingly, in the second quarter of 2024, we recorded a pre-tax provision of $4 million related to the settlement of these cases, which we paid in the third quarter of 2024.

Overview: In the health care cost recovery litigation, governmental entities seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures allegedly caused by tobacco products and, in some cases, of future expenditures and damages. Relief sought by some but not all plaintiffs includes punitive damages, multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, injunctions prohibiting alleged marketing and sales to minors, disclosure of research, disgorgement of profits, funding of anti-smoking programs, additional disclosure of nicotine yields, and payment of attorney and expert witness fees.

Although there have been some decisions to the contrary, most judicial decisions in the United States have dismissed all or most health care cost recovery claims against cigarette manufacturers. Nine federal circuit courts of appeals and eight state appellate courts, relying primarily on grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were too remote, have ordered or affirmed dismissals of health care cost recovery actions. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs’ appeals from the cases decided by five federal circuit courts of appeal.

Since the beginning of 2008, the Canadian Provinces of British Columbia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have brought health care reimbursement claims against cigarette manufacturers. PM USA is named as a defendant in the British Columbia and Quebec cases, while both Altria and PM USA are named as defendants in the New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia cases. The Nunavut Territory and Northwest Territory have passed legislation permitting similar claims, but lawsuits based on this legislation have not been filed. All of these cases have been stayed pending resolution of proceedings in Canada involving three tobacco manufacturers (none of which are affiliated with us) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act discussed above. See Smoking and Health Litigation - Other Smoking and Health Class Actions above for a discussion of these proceedings. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria and PMI that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

Settlements of Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation: In November 1998, PM USA and certain other tobacco product manufacturers entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”) with 46 states, the District of Columbia and certain United States territories to settle asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. PM USA and certain other tobacco product manufacturers had previously entered into agreements to settle similar claims brought by Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota (together with the MSA, the “State Settlement Agreements”). The State Settlement Agreements require that the original participating manufacturers or “OPMs” (now PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and, with respect to certain brands, ITG Brands, LLC (“ITG”)) make annual payments of approximately $10.4 billion, subject to adjustments for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume. The OPMs’ obligation to make quarterly payments settling plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, subject to an annual cap of $500 million, on a pro rata basis based on market share, ended in the fourth quarter of 2024. For the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, the aggregate amount recorded in cost of sales with respect to the State Settlement Agreements was approximately $1.5 billion and $1.8 billion, respectively. These amounts include PM USA’s estimate of amounts related to NPM Adjustments discussed below.

Non-Participating Manufacturer (“NPM”) Adjustment Disputes: The “NPM Adjustment” is a reduction in MSA payments made by the OPMs and those manufacturers that are subsequent signatories to the MSA (collectively, the “participating manufacturers” or “PMs”) that applies if the PMs collectively lose at least a specified level of market share to non-participating manufacturers since 1997, subject to certain conditions and defenses. The applicability of this reduction has been subject to certain disputes, some of which have been resolved via settlement, as discussed below.

▪2004 NPM Adjustment. The PMs and the nine states that had not settled the NPM Adjustment disputes for 2004 participated in a multi-state arbitration. Iowa subsequently joined the multistate settlement in August 2023. The arbitration panel found three of the remaining eight states that have not settled the NPM Adjustment disputes, Washington, Missouri and New Mexico, were not diligent in the enforcement of their escrow statutes in 2004, and PM USA received approximately $52 million on account of the 2004 NPM Adjustment as a credit against its April 2023 MSA payment. Washington, Missouri and New Mexico have challenged those determinations in their respective state courts, and several issues remain to be resolved by the state trial and appellate courts that may affect the final amount of the 2004 NPM adjustment PM USA and other PMs will receive.

▪2005-2007 NPM Adjustments. The PMs and the six states that have not settled the NPM Adjustment disputes are currently arbitrating NPM Adjustment disputes before a single arbitration panel. The arbitration encompasses three years, 2005 through 2007, for five of the six states, and one year, 2005, for one state. As of July 28, 2025, the arbitration panel had issued decisions for Maryland, Washington, Wisconsin and Ohio, finding Maryland, Wisconsin and Ohio diligent for all three years and Washington not diligent for all three years. Washington challenged that determination in Washington state court, and the challenge was denied by the trial court. Washington has appealed that denial, and the appeal remains pending. PM USA recorded $35 million in the fourth quarter of 2023 for its estimate of the minimum amount of the 2005 through 2007 NPM Adjustment it will receive.

Other Disputes under the State Settlement Agreements: The payment obligations of the tobacco product manufacturers that are parties to the State Settlement Agreements, as well as the allocations of any NPM Adjustments and related settlements, have been and may continue to be affected by R.J. Reynolds’s acquisition of Lorillard Tobacco Company in 2015 and its related sale of certain cigarette brands to ITG (the “ITG transferred brands”). PM USA continues to dispute how the ITG transferred brands are treated in allocating the NPM Adjustments and profit adjustments under the State Settlement Agreements.

In December 2019, the State of Mississippi filed a motion in Mississippi state court seeking to enforce the Mississippi State Settlement Agreement against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and ITG concerning the tax rates used in the annual calculation of the net operating profit adjustment payments starting in 2018. The Mississippi state court held a hearing in October 2021 and issued a decision in June 2022 granting the State’s motion. PM USA appealed the court’s decision in June 2024. In September 2024, PM USA and Mississippi settled their dispute over the profit adjustment payments. Pursuant to the settlement, PM USA paid $7 million to Mississippi for 2018 through 2023. Accordingly, PM USA recorded $5 million of expense to cost of sales and $2 million of interest expense in the third quarter of 2024.

In May 2023, PM USA and R.J. Reynolds filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking to enforce the Texas State Settlement Agreement against the State of Texas concerning the same tax rate issue raised by the State of Mississippi. The State of Texas filed a cross-motion to enforce, and the court found in favor of the State of Texas. In March 2025, the court issued a final order in the matter, finding that PM USA owes $31 million to the State of Texas, plus pre- and post-judgment interest. PM USA has appealed, and the appeal remains pending.

In July 2024, the State of Minnesota filed a motion in Minnesota state court seeking to enforce the Minnesota State Settlement Agreement against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and ITG concerning the same state tax issues raised by Mississippi and Texas. The court found in favor of the State of Minnesota. As of July 28, 2025, the court had not made a determination on damages. PM USA intends to appeal.

Federal Government’s Lawsuit: In 1999, the U.S. government filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against various cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA, and others, including Altria, asserting claims under three federal statutes. The case ultimately proceeded only under the civil provisions of RICO. In August 2006, the district court held

The court did not impose monetary penalties on defendants, but ordered various types of non-monetary relief, including an injunction against conveying any express or implied health message or health descriptors on cigarette packaging or in cigarette advertising or promotional material, including “lights,” “ultra lights” and “low tar,” which the court found could cause consumers to believe one cigarette brand is less hazardous than another brand, and the issuance of “corrective statements” in various media regarding the adverse health effects of smoking, the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine, the lack of any significant health benefit from smoking “low tar” or “light” cigarettes, defendants’ manipulation of cigarette design to ensure optimum nicotine delivery and the adverse health effects of exposure to ETS.

Corrective statements appeared in newspapers and on television for four months and one year, respectively, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2017, and the onserts appeared for two weeks at a time for a total of twelve weeks over two years beginning in the fourth quarter of 2018. Corrective statements have appeared on websites since the second quarter of 2018. In December 2022, the district court entered a consent order approving a settlement with respect to corrective statements on point-of-sale signage, which appeared through June 2025. In addition to the $28 million of provisions recorded in 2022, we recorded in the first quarter of 2024 provisions of $15 million for estimated costs of implementing the corrective statements on point-of-sale signage remedy.

We have been named as defendants in federal class action lawsuits, individual lawsuits and “third party” lawsuits relating to JUUL e-vapor products, which include school districts, state and local governments and tribal and healthcare organization lawsuits. We refer to this litigation in the United States collectively as the “Multidistrict Litigation.” The theories of recovery in the Multidistrict Litigation include violation of RICO, fraud, failure to warn, design defect, negligence, public nuisance and unfair trade practices. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages, restitution or remediation (for plaintiffs that are government entities) and an injunction prohibiting product sales. We also have been named as defendants in a group of cases pending in a consolidated California state court proceeding.

In May 2023, we reached agreement on terms to resolve the majority of the Multidistrict Litigation lawsuits as well as the majority of the group of cases pending in the consolidated California state court proceeding for $235 million, for which amount we recorded a pre-tax provision in the second quarter of 2023. In March 2024, the court granted final approval of the class action settlement, and we paid the settlement amount in the second quarter of 2024. The settlement applies to all of the Multidistrict Litigation except 11 individual cases that opted out of the settlement, all of the consolidated California cases except nine individual cases that opted out of the settlement and 38 “third party” cases brought by Native American tribes. We separately agreed to settle the cases brought by Native American tribes in July 2024, and these cases have been dismissed. We recorded a pre-tax provision for $20 million in the second quarter of 2024 related to the Native American tribes settlement and paid the settlement amount in October 2024. Neither settlement applies to three class action lawsuits pending in Canada or 17 putative class action antitrust lawsuits. For a description of the antitrust cases not subject to the settlement, see Antitrust Litigation below.

In May 2023, Fuma International LLC (“Fuma”) filed a lawsuit against Altria and our affiliates Nu Mark LLC (“Nu Mark”), AGDC, ALCS and NJOY in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia asserting claims of patent infringement based on the sale of various Nu Mark and NJOY products, including NJOY ACE, in the United States. In August 2023, we entered into an agreement with Fuma resulting in NJOY’s acquisition of the patents that Fuma asserted in its lawsuit. The parties separately agreed that Fuma would dismiss its patent infringement claims in exchange for $10 million, and such claims were dismissed in August 2023. We recorded a pre-tax provision for $10 million in the third quarter of 2023 related to the agreement and paid such amount to Fuma in August 2023.

In June 2023, JUUL and VMR Products LLC (“VMR”) filed a lawsuit against Altria and our affiliates AGDC, ALCS, NJOY Holdings, Inc. and NJOY in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona asserting claims of patent infringement based on the sale of NJOY ACE in the United States. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including damages and an injunction on sales of NJOY ACE. The lawsuit is currently stayed.

Also in June 2023, the same plaintiffs filed a related action against the same defendants with the ITC. There, the plaintiffs also allege patent infringement, but the remedies sought include an exclusion order that would prohibit the importation of NJOY ACE into the United States. No damages are recoverable in the proceedings before the ITC. A hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was held in May 2024, and, in August 2024, the ALJ issued an initial determination supporting the plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to four patents and recommending an exclusion order. In September 2024, NJOY petitioned the ITC to review the ALJ’s initial determination. In October 2024, the ITC granted review of the ALJ’s initial determination with respect to aspects of two of the four patents. In January 2025, the ITC issued its final determination finding that NJOY ACE infringes the four patents plaintiff asserted and issued an exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders prohibiting the importation and sale of NJOY ACE in the United States. The ITC sent its orders to the Office of the United

States Trade Representative, which had 60 days to review the ITC’s determination. The orders became effective on March 31, 2025 after the 60-day review period ended without the United States Trade Representative taking action. The final exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders prohibiting the importation and sale of NJOY ACE will remain in effect during the pendency of the appeal. In February 2025, we filed a motion for reconsideration of the ITC’s determination finding that NJOY ACE infringes the four patents plaintiff asserted, asking the ITC to reverse its determination that NJOY ACE infringes one of the four patents. The ITC denied the motion in April 2025. We have appealed the final exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In November and December 2023 and February 2024, Altria and our affiliates filed petitions with the U.S. Patent Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) challenging the validity of the patents underlying JUUL and VMR’s patent infringement claims. In May, June and August 2024, the PTAB denied Altria’s requests to institute review as to four patents (including three of the patents that form the basis of the ITC’s final determination) and, in June 2024, granted Altria’s request to institute review as to one of the patents that forms the basis of the ITC’s final determination. In June 2025, the PTAB issued its decision concluding that the patent it reviewed was valid. Appeals may be filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In August 2023, NJOY filed a complaint against JUUL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting claims of patent infringement based on the sale of certain JUUL e-vapor products, including the currently marketed JUUL device and JUULpods, in the United States. The lawsuit is currently stayed. However, as discussed below, we have moved to lift the stay.

Also in August 2023, NJOY filed a related action against JUUL with the ITC alleging patent infringement and seeking a ban on the importation and sale of the same JUUL products in the United States. A hearing before the ALJ was held in June 2024. In December 2024, the ALJ issued an initial determination concluding that, while the patents NJOY asserted against JUUL are valid, JUUL products do not infringe the patents. The ALJ also determined that, with respect to the asserted patents, NJOY did not satisfy the “domestic industry” requirement, which requires the party asserting a patent to show significant and substantial domestic investments, such as investments related to engineering, research and development or licensing, designed to exploit the patent. Subsequently, in December 2024, NJOY petitioned the ITC to review the ALJ’s initial determination. In March 2025, the ITC granted in part NJOY’s petition to review the ALJ’s initial determination. On review, the ITC affirmed the ALJ’s initial determination that the JUUL products do not infringe the asserted patents and terminated the investigation. In May 2025, we appealed the ITC’s final determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Subsequently, in July 2025, we voluntarily dismissed the appeal and moved to lift the stay on NJOY’s lawsuit against JUUL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (discussed above).

In November 2023, JUUL filed petitions with the PTAB challenging the validity of the patents underlying NJOY’s patent infringement claims. In May 2024, the PTAB agreed to review JUUL’s challenge to both of the NJOY patents asserted against JUUL. In May 2025, the PTAB issued its decision concluding that the patents it reviewed were valid. The deadline to appeal the PTAB’s decision has passed, and JUUL did not appeal.

We, JUUL and VMR previously engaged with a mediator to attempt to negotiate a resolution of the proceedings pending before the ITC, U.S. District Courts and the PTAB. The parties also have engaged in negotiations without a mediator. Based on the status of the negotiations and the proceedings before the ITC, U.S. District Courts, the PTAB and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we have determined that a loss with respect to a negotiated resolution of such proceedings is not probable or reasonably estimable as of the date of this filing.

In April 2020, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which are affiliates of R.J. Reynolds, filed a lawsuit against Altria, PM USA, ALCS, PMI and its affiliate, Philip Morris Products S.A., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia asserting claims of patent infringement based on the sale of the IQOS System electronic device and Marlboro HeatSticks in the United States. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys’ fees. Altria and PMI were previously dismissed from the lawsuit, and plaintiffs’ claims against the other defendants have been stayed.

PM USA, ALCS and Philip Morris Products S.A. filed counterclaims against plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Virginia lawsuit alleging patent infringement by R.J. Reynolds’ e-vapor products. In June 2022, PM USA and ALCS reached an agreement with R.J. Reynolds resulting in dismissal of their counterclaims. In addition, ALCS filed a separate lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina also alleging patent infringement by R.J. Reynolds’ e-vapor products. In September 2022, a jury awarded ALCS $95 million in damages for past infringement, plus supplemental damages and interest. In January 2023, the court ordered R.J. Reynolds to pay ALCS a 5.25% royalty on future sales of its infringing product resulting in positive net income through the expiration of the relevant patents in 2035. R.J. Reynolds filed a notice of appeal of the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the judgment in December 2024. In July 2024, R.J. Reynolds moved the district court to vacate the judgment, including the damages awards and ongoing royalties, on the grounds that R.J. Reynolds obtained a sub-license to the asserted patents from JUUL in December 2023. In December 2024, the district court denied the motion as to the damages award and royalties due

through December 2023. The district court also found that additional proceedings were warranted on the part of the motion regarding royalties after R.J. Reynolds obtained the sub-license. The district court has set an evidentiary hearing for February 2026. As gains related to this lawsuit have not yet been determined to be realized or realizable in accordance with GAAP, they have not been recognized in our condensed consolidated financial statements.

As of July 28, 2025, 17 putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Altria and JUUL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In November 2020, these lawsuits were consolidated into three complaints (one on behalf of direct purchasers, one on behalf of indirect purchasers and one on behalf of indirect resellers). The consolidated lawsuits, as amended, allege that Altria and JUUL violated Sections 1, 2 and/or 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act and various state antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws by restraining trade and/or substantially lessening competition in the U.S. closed-system electronic cigarette market. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including treble damages, attorneys’ fees, a declaration that the agreements between Altria and JUUL are invalid and rescission of the transaction. In February 2024, the court ordered that certain of the direct-purchaser plaintiffs’ claims against JUUL be sent to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision in JUUL’s online purchase agreement and dismissed without prejudice the direct-purchaser plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief. In April 2025, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all monopolization claims and all claims against the Altria defendants under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The trial with respect to the remaining claims in the consolidated lawsuits is set to commence in May 2026.

In October 2022, we agreed to settle a series of federal and state derivative cases brought by Altria shareholders on behalf of themselves and Altria against Altria and certain of our current and former executives and directors and JUUL, its founders and certain of its current and former executives. The cases related to our former investment in JUUL and asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the Altria defendants and aiding and abetting in that alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the remaining defendants.

Under the terms of the settlement, which became effective in May 2023, among other things, we agreed to provide $100 million in funding over a five-year period to underage tobacco prevention and cessation programs, which may include positive youth development programs, led by independent third-party organizations. We began providing funding in the third quarter of 2024. In 2022, we recorded pre-tax provisions totaling $27 million for costs associated with the independent monitoring of our funding commitments and attorneys’ fees. In the first quarter of 2023, we recorded pre-tax provisions totaling approximately $100 million related to the settlement, and in April 2023, paid $15 million to plaintiffs’ escrow account for attorneys’ fees.

“Lights/Ultra Lights” Cases and Other Smoking and Health Class Actions: Plaintiffs have sought certification of their cases as class actions, alleging among other things, that the uses of the terms “Lights” and/or “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and have sought injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria or our other subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. Twenty-one state courts in 23 “Lights” cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM USA. As of July 28, 2025, two “Lights/Ultra Lights” class actions are pending in U.S. state courts. Neither case is active.

UST Litigation: UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in a number of individual tobacco and health lawsuits over time. Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in these cases have been based on various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs have typically sought various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable relief, including disgorgement. Defenses raised in these cases have included lack of causation, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of limitations. As of July 28, 2025, there is no such case pending against UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries.

Altria and our former subsidiaries are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise related to environmental protection, including, in the United States: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (commonly known as “Superfund”), which can impose joint and several liability on each responsible party. Altria and our former subsidiaries are involved in several cost recovery/contribution cases subjecting them to potential costs of remediation and natural resource damages under Superfund or other laws and regulations. We expect to continue to make capital and other expenditures in connection with environmental laws and regulations.

We provide for expenses associated with environmental remediation obligations on an undiscounted basis when such amounts are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Such accruals are adjusted as new information develops or circumstances change. Other than those amounts, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the cost of any environmental remediation and compliance efforts that we may undertake in the future. In the opinion of our management, however, compliance with environmental laws and regulations, including the payment of any remediation costs or damages and the making of related expenditures, has not had a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated results of operations, capital expenditures, financial position or cash flows.

In the ordinary course of business, we have agreed to indemnify a limited number of third parties in the event of future litigation. At June 30, 2025, we (i) had $43 million of unused letters of credit obtained in the ordinary course of business and (ii) were contingently liable for guarantees related to our own performance, including $90 million for surety bonds. In addition, from time to time, we issue lines of credit to affiliated entities. These items have not had, and are not expected to have, a significant impact on our liquidity.

Under the terms of a distribution agreement between Altria and PMI (“Distribution Agreement”), entered into as a result of our 2008 spin-off of our former subsidiary PMI, liabilities concerning tobacco products will be allocated based in substantial part on the manufacturer. PMI will indemnify Altria and PM USA for liabilities related to tobacco products manufactured by PMI or contract manufactured for PMI by PM USA, and PM USA will indemnify PMI for liabilities related to tobacco products manufactured by PM USA, excluding tobacco products contract manufactured for PMI. We do not have a related liability recorded on our condensed consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2025 as the fair value of this indemnification is insignificant. PMI has agreed not to seek indemnification with respect to the active IQOS System patent litigation discussed above under IQOS Litigation.