Contingencies:	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies:	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 subsidiary 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 18. 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 18. Contingencies, (i) management has not concluded that it is probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending combustible tobacco product-related cases; (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss for any of the pending combustible tobacco product-related cases; and (iii) accordingly, no estimated loss has been accrued in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes in these cases, if any. CCAA Proceedings and Stay of Combustible Tobacco Product-Related Cases Pending in Canada As a result of the Court of Appeal of Quebec’s decision in both the Létourneau and Blais cases described below, our subsidiary, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (“RBH”), and the other defendants, JTI Macdonald Corp. ("JTIM"), and Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited ("ITL"), sought protection in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) on March 22, March 8, and March 12, 2019, respectively. CCAA is a Canadian federal law that permits a Canadian business to restructure its affairs while carrying on its business in the ordinary course. The initial CCAA order made by the Ontario Superior Court on March 22, 2019 authorizes RBH to pay all expenses incurred in carrying on its business in the ordinary course after the CCAA filing, including obligations to employees, vendors, and suppliers. RBH's financial results have been deconsolidated from our consolidated financial statements since March 22, 2019. As part of the CCAA proceedings, there is currently a comprehensive stay up to and including March 3, 2025 or the date on which the CCAA court issues an order on the Sanction Motion (discussed below) of all combustible tobacco product-related litigation pending in Canada against RBH and the other defendants, including PMI and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), namely, the smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces and health care cost recovery actions. These proceedings are presented below under the caption “Stayed Litigation — Canada.” Ernst & Young Inc. has been appointed as monitor of RBH in the CCAA proceedings. On April 17, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that RBH and the other defendants will not be allowed to file an application to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Létourneau and the Blais cases so long as the comprehensive stay of all combustible tobacco product-related litigation in Canada remains in effect and that the time period to file the application would be extended by the stay period. While RBH believes that the findings of liability and damages in both Létourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect, the CCAA proceedings provide a forum for RBH to seek resolution through a plan of arrangement or compromise of all combustible tobacco product-related litigation pending in Canada. On October 17, 2024, the court-appointed mediator and monitor in the CCAA proceedings filed a proposed plan of compromise and arrangement (“Proposed Plan”) setting forth, among other things, certain terms of a proposed comprehensive resolution of Canadian tobacco claims and related litigation against RBH, its affiliates, and its affiliates’ indemnitees. The court-appointed mediator and monitors also filed substantially similar proposed plans for ITL and JTIM. Under the resolution contemplated by the Proposed Plan, RBH, ITL and JTIM (together, the “Companies”) would pay an aggregate global settlement amount of CAD 32.5 billion (approximately $22.3 billion). This amount would be funded by an upfront payment equal to the companies’ cash and cash equivalents on hand plus court deposits (subject to an aggregate withholding of CAD 750 million (approximately $514 million) of working capital) and annual payments based on a percentage of the Companies’ aggregate net income after taxes (excluding that generated by alternative products such as heat-not-burn, nicotine pouches, and e-vapor) until the global settlement amount is paid in full. As stated in the Proposed Plan, the issue of allocation of the CAD 32.5 billion aggregate settlement amount among RBH, ITL, and JTIM ("Allocation Issue") remains unresolved. RBH and its affiliates, including PMI and its indemnitees, would obtain a release of claims relating to the manufacture, marketing, sale, or use of or exposure to, RBH’s combustible and traditional smokeless tobacco products based on conduct prior to the effective date of the Proposed Plan; related litigation would also be dismissed—including those actions described in the section below entitled “Stayed Litigation – Canada.” Alternative product businesses (including heat-not-burn, e-vapor, and nicotine pouches) would be transferred to an RBH affiliate or otherwise maintained separately from RBH's combustible business. The Proposed Plan also contains a number of operating covenants that would govern RBH’s business going forward until the settlement amount has been paid. On January 15, 2025, RBH’s court-appointed monitor filed a motion seeking an order by the CCAA court approving and sanctioning the Proposed Plan and authorizing and directing the monitor, among others, to take all steps and actions necessary and appropriate to implement the Proposed Plan (“Sanction Motion” and the requested order, the “Proposed Sanction Order”). On January 24, 2025, RBH filed an objection to the Sanction Motion (“RBH Objection”). The RBH Objection argues that the Proposed Plan cannot be approved because it fails to resolve the Allocation Issue. The RBH Objection also states that, without an appropriate, fair and reasonable resolution of the Allocation Issue, RBH cannot presently consent to implementation of the Proposed Plan. To address the Allocation Issue, the RBH Objection seeks to amend the Proposed Sanction Order to include provisions (the “Proposed Allocation Provisions”) requiring that ITL and JTIM make payments to RBH from their retained working capital and net income after taxes over a period of years. ITL, JTIM, and certain claimant groups have opposed the Proposed Allocation Provisions set forth in the RBH Objection. A judicial hearing to consider approval of the Proposed Plan, including the Sanction Motion, the RBH Objection and the Proposed Allocation Provisions, was held from January 29 through January 31, 2025. Further hearing dates may be scheduled. A decision from the CCAA court on whether and what form to sanction the Proposed Plan is expected in the first quarter. If ultimately approved by the CCAA court and, among other things, not subject to appeal, implementation of the Proposed Plan is expected in 2025. For additional information concerning the fair value of PMI’s continuing investment in RBH and the impairment charge recorded in the Company’s consolidated statement of earnings for the year ended December 31, 2024, as a recognized subsequent event, see Item 8, Note 6. Related Parties – Equity Investments and Other. Stayed Litigation — Canada Smoking and Health Litigation — Canada In the first class action pending in Canada, Conseil Québécois Sur Le Tabac Et La Santé and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, RBH and other Canadian cigarette manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants (the "Blais Class Action"). The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who suffers allegedly from certain smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and found that the class members’ compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion (approximately $10.6 billion), including pre-judgment interest. The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion (approximately $2.1 billion) including pre-judgment interest). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $62,000) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $21,000) to RBH. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members. RBH appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $155 million) to cover both the Létourneau and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in installments through March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $520 million) in installments through June 2017. JTI Macdonald Corp. was not required to furnish security in accordance with plaintiffs’ motion. The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court’s judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court’s findings of liability and the compensatory and punitive damages award while reducing the total amount of compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion (approximately $9.3 billion), including interest due to the trial court’s error in the calculation of interest. The compensatory damages award is on a joint and several basis with an allocation of 20% to RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion (approximately $1.9 billion), including pre-judgment interest). The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s findings that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking and by conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of smoking. The Court of Appeal further held that the plaintiffs either need not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults were a cause of the class members’ injuries. In accordance with the judgment, defendants were required to deposit their respective portions of the damages awarded in both the Létourneau case described below and the Blais case, approximately CAD 1.1 billion (approximately $754 million), into trust accounts within 60 days. RBH’s share of the deposit was approximately CAD 257 million (approximately $194 million). PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $194 million in its consolidated results, representing $142 million net of tax, as tobacco litigation-related expense, in the first quarter of 2019. The charge reflects PMI’s assessment of the portion of the judgment that represents probable and estimable loss prior to the deconsolidation of RBH and corresponds to the trust account deposit required by the judgment. In the second class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Létourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, RBH and other Canadian cigarette manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants (the "Létourneau Class Action"). The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $90 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $32 million) to RBH. The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at 918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims with sufficient accuracy. The trial court found that a claims process to allocate the awarded punitive damages to individual class members would be too expensive and difficult to administer. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court’s findings of liability and the total amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million (approximately $39 million), including interest to RBH. See the Blais description above for further detail concerning the security order pertaining to both Létourneau and Blais cases and the impact of the decision on PMI’s financial statements. RBH and PMI believe the findings of liability and damages in both Létourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect and in contravention of applicable law on several grounds including, the following: (i) defendants had no obligation to warn class members who knew, or should have known, of the risks of smoking; (ii) defendants cannot be liable to class members who would have smoked regardless of what warnings were given; and (iii) defendants cannot be liable to all class members given the individual differences among class members. In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim. In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation — Canada In the first health care cost recovery case pending in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, Canada, filed January 24, 2001, we, RBH, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the government of the province of British Columbia, brought a claim based upon legislation enacted by the province authorizing the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, resulting from a “tobacco related wrong.” In the second health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Brunswick v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Court, New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, filed March 13, 2008, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of New Brunswick based on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the law introduced in British Columbia that authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the third health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Canada, filed September 29, 2009, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Ontario based on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia and New Brunswick that authorize the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the fourth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. Johns, Canada, filed February 8, 2011, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the fifth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Attorney General of Quebec v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Superior Court of Quebec, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Quebec based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the sixth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty in Right of Alberta v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Queen's Bench Alberta, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Alberta based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the seventh health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, Inc., et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Judicial Centre, Canada, filed May 31, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Manitoba based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the eighth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, The Government of Saskatchewan v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatchewan, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Saskatchewan based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the ninth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Prince Edward Island v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (General Section), Canada, filed September 10, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Prince Edward Island based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the tenth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Canada, filed January 2, 2015, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Nova Scotia based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” 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 resolved cases have been terminated in our favor and only a small number of cases remain pending. The pending cases include nine proposed class actions, 17 health care cost recovery cases, one public civil action, and individual cases. 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, four were initially decided in favor of plaintiffs and remain on appeal, or are subject to an appeal. These four cases include the Blais Class Action and the Létourneau Class Action, described above under the caption "Smoking and Health Litigation — Canada," and two individual cases where final resolution in the amount of the verdict 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: Smoking and Health Proposed Class Actions: These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs on behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes. 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 licit activity, failure to state a claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations. As of December 31, 2024, there were nine cases brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees, compared with nine such cases on December 31, 2023, and nine such cases on December 31, 2022, and such cases are described above under the caption “Smoking and Health Litigation — Canada.” 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, 2024, there were 17 health care cost recovery cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees in Brazil (1), Canada (10), Korea (1) and Nigeria (5), compared with 17 such cases on December 31, 2023 and 17 such cases on December 31, 2022. The health care cost recovery actions pending in Canada are described above under the caption “Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation — Canada.” 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 for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, 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 for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. We are in the process of challenging 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 for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, 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 for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, 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 for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, 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 the Plaintiff a de novo appeal in 2021 and determined that the appellate proceedings will take place in stages: wrongful conduct/product defect allegations first, then causation and finally issues such as standing/direct action. The plaintiff's appeal remains pending. 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, 2024, there was one public civil action pending against our subsidiary in Venezuela (1), compared with one such case on December 31, 2023, and one such case on December 31, 2022. 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, or on behalf of a purported class of individuals. 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. 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 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. 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. He 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. 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 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. He 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. 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 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, 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, which the Court ordered on October 3, 2024. 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. District of Columbia Attorney General Investigation: On June 11, 2024, Swedish Match North America LLC received a subpoena from the office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia (“D.C.”). The subpoena requested, among other things, information concerning Swedish Match North America LLC’s compliance with D.C.’s licensing regulations, age-verification requirements, and prohibition on the sale of flavored tobacco products, including with respect to ZYN nicotine pouches. Swedish Match North America LLC cooperated with the investigation, and on December 12, 2024, it executed an assurance of voluntary compliance with the office of the Attorney General to resolve the Attorney General's investigation, without admitting liability or wrongdoing. Pursuant to the assurance of voluntary compliance, Swedish Match North America LLC paid $1,200,000 to D.C. and agreed to undertake certain limited conduct obligations moving forward. Other Litigation On November 18, 2024, a putative class action, Neumark v. Swedish Match North America LLC, was filed before United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint named Swedish Match North America LLC as the defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Swedish Match North America LLC violated federal and state antitrust laws by, among other things, driving a competitor from the market through purportedly baseless litigation and entering into an allegedly anticompetitive agreement with PMI whereby PMI, through an indirect subsidiary, acquired Swedish Match North America LLC and eliminated itself as a competitor in the U.S. nicotine pouch market. Plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, state antitrust law, and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to represent (i) all natural persons, businesses, entities, and corporations in the United States who purchased ZYN at retail during the class period; and (ii) all natural persons, businesses, entities, and corporations in the United States who live in states that have certain antitrust statutes who purchase ZYN at retail during the class period. Plaintiff is seeking damages (including treble damages as available under antitrust laws), costs, attorneys’ fees, disgorgement of profit, pre- and post-judgment interest, and declaratory and injunctive relief (including a declaration that the acquisition of Swedish Match North America LLC by PMI is unlawful and must result in divestiture or be enjoined). On January 15, 2025, Swedish Match North America LLC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Subsequently thereto, Plaintiff informed Swedish Match North America LLC that he will file an amended complaint, which is due on February 10, 2025 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. The Department of Special Investigations of the government of Thailand ("DSI") conducted an investigation into alleged underpayment by Philip Morris (Thailand) Limited ("PM Thailand") of customs duties and excise taxes relating to imports from Indonesia covering the period 2000-2003. On January 26, 2017, the Public Prosecutor filed charges against PM Thailand and its former Thai employee in the Bangkok Criminal Court alleging that PM Thailand and its former employee jointly and with the intention to defraud the Thai government under-declared import prices of cigarettes to avoid full payment of taxes and duties in connection with import entries during the period from January 2002 to July 2003. The government sought a fine of approximately THB 19.8 billion (approximately $584 million). In May 2017, Thailand enacted a new customs act. The new act, which took effect in November 2017, substantially limits the amount of fines that Thailand could seek in these proceedings. PM Thailand believes that its declared import prices are in compliance with the Customs Valuation Agreement of the World Trade Organization and Thai law, and that the allegations of the Public Prosecutor are inconsistent with several decisions already taken by Thai Customs and a Thai court. Trial in the case began in November 2018 and concluded in December 2019. In March 2020, the trial court found our subsidiary guilty of under-declaration of the prices and imposed a fine of approximately THB 130 million (approximately $3.9 million). The trial court dismissed all charges against the individual defendant. In April 2020, as required by Thai law, our subsidiary paid the fine. This payment is included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets and negatively impacted net cash provided by operating activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows in the period of payment. Our subsidiary filed an appeal of the trial court's decision. In addition, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal of the trial court's decision challenging the dismissal of charges against the individual defendant and the amount of the fine imposed. The appellate court issued its decision on the appeals on January 31, 2023. The appellate court affirmed the findings of under-declaration of import prices of cigarettes but reduced the fine imposed by the trial court. The appellate court directed the Public Prosecutor to coordinate with customs officials to calculate such reduced fine in accordance with the appellate court’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the acquittal of the individual defendant. Our subsidiary has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Thailand. The Public Prosecutor has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Thailand challenging the dismissal of charges against the individual defendant and the amount of the fine. Thailand is required to refund any payment made by our subsidiary in excess of any fine assessed by the courts. 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. BAT 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 $51 million) in damages. After various postponements, the trial started on September 25, 2023, and is expected to continue in 2025 through a series of evidentiary hearings. PM Italia believes it has strong defenses to the charges against it and will defend them vigorously. The Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation filed a petition before the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Region seeking the suspension of corporate rights that Megapolis Distribution B.V. (“MDBV”), a legal entity incorporated in the Netherlands, held, pursuant to Dutch law, in JSC TK Megapolis (formerly CJSC TK Megapolis), which is the distributor of PMI’s products in Russia. On July 18, 2024, the court admitted the petition. On August 8, 2024, the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Region granted the forced localization, as requested by the Ministry of Industry and Trade. As a result, MDBV's interest and corporate rights in JSC TK Megapolis were transferred to JSC TK Megapolis. On December 5, 2024, JSC TK Megapolis registered the subsequent transfer of such interest and corporate rights to a PMI affiliate, ZAO Philip Morris Izhora. For additional information, see Note 6. Related Parties – Equity Investments and Other. 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 ($24 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 infringement of JP7299432. FTKK sought an order stopping the importation of TEREA consumables. FTKK did not in its application seek any monetary damages or costs. PMJL entered an appearance in the proceeding as an interested party and filed its response to FTKK's application on January 31, 2024. The Customs hearing was held on May 28, 2024. On June 27, 2024 expert advisors to Customs provided their opinion that the patent at issue was not infringed. On June 28, 2024, FTKK withdrew its Customs application. The proceeding is now concluded. On January 26, 2024, PMJL filed a declaratory judgment action in Tokyo District Court seeking a declaration that JP7299432 is invalid and/or not infringed. The declaratory judgment action has now concluded following FTKK's waiver of its right to seek relief from PMJL for infringement of JP7299432, which effectively resolved PMJL's request for a declaration of no liability for infringement of that patent. In July and August 2024, respectively, FTKK filed two patent infringement actions against Sojitz, PMJL’s importer and distributor, for alleged infringement of two patents by TEREA consumables. FTKK asserts a claim for damages. PMJL is obligated to indemnify Sojitz for damages and intervened in the matters. Merits briefing in the matters commenced in December 2024. In November and December 2024, FTKK filed seven additional patent infringement actions against Sojitz for alleged infringement of seven new FTKK patents by TEREA and SENTIA consumables. FTKK asserts a claim for damages in these actions. PMJL is obligated to indemnify Sojitz for damages and intervened in the matters. Merits briefing in these matters is expected to commence in the first half of 2025. On November 27, 2024, we were informed that FTKK filed a new application with Tokyo Customs against Sojitz, PMJL’s importer and distributor, on the basis of alleged infringement of another FTKK patent. FTKK is seeking an order stopping the importation of TEREA and SENTIA consumables. At this time, FTKK is not seeking any monetary damages or costs. PMJL has entered an appearance in the proceeding as an interested party and filed its opposition to FTKK’s application on January 9, 2025. On January 9, 2025, PMJL and Sojitz filed a declaratory judgment action against FTKK in Tokyo District Court with respect to the patent at issue in the pending Tokyo Customs matter on the basis that the relevant patent is not infringed or is invalid. 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.

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.

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 subsidiary before certain courts in the United States.

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.

As a result of the Court of Appeal of Quebec’s decision in both the Létourneau and Blais cases described below, our subsidiary, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (“RBH”), and the other defendants, JTI Macdonald Corp. ("JTIM"), and Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited ("ITL"), sought protection in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) on March 22, March 8, and March 12, 2019, respectively. CCAA is a Canadian federal law that permits a Canadian business to restructure its affairs while carrying on its business in the ordinary course. The initial CCAA order made by the Ontario Superior Court on March 22, 2019 authorizes RBH to pay all expenses incurred in carrying on its business in the ordinary course after the CCAA filing, including obligations to employees, vendors, and suppliers. RBH's financial results have been deconsolidated from our consolidated financial statements since March 22, 2019.

As part of the CCAA proceedings, there is currently a comprehensive stay up to and including March 3, 2025 or the date on which the CCAA court issues an order on the Sanction Motion (discussed below) of all combustible tobacco product-related litigation pending in Canada against RBH and the other defendants, including PMI and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), namely, the smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces and health care cost recovery actions. These proceedings are presented below under the caption “Stayed Litigation — Canada.” Ernst & Young Inc. has been appointed as monitor of RBH in the CCAA proceedings. On April 17, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that RBH and the other defendants will not be allowed to file an application to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Létourneau and the Blais cases so long as the comprehensive stay of all combustible tobacco product-related litigation in Canada remains in effect and that the time period to file the application would be extended by the stay period.

While RBH believes that the findings of liability and damages in both Létourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect, the CCAA proceedings provide a forum for RBH to seek resolution through a plan of arrangement or compromise of all combustible tobacco product-related litigation pending in Canada. On October 17, 2024, the court-appointed mediator and monitor in the CCAA proceedings filed a proposed plan of compromise and arrangement (“Proposed Plan”) setting forth, among other things, certain terms of a proposed comprehensive resolution of Canadian tobacco claims and related litigation against RBH, its affiliates, and its affiliates’ indemnitees. The court-appointed mediator and monitors also filed substantially similar proposed plans for ITL and JTIM.

Under the resolution contemplated by the Proposed Plan, RBH, ITL and JTIM (together, the “Companies”) would pay an aggregate global settlement amount of CAD 32.5 billion (approximately $22.3 billion). This amount would be funded by an upfront payment equal to the companies’ cash and cash equivalents on hand plus court deposits (subject to an aggregate withholding of CAD 750 million (approximately $514 million) of working capital) and annual payments based on a percentage of the Companies’ aggregate net income after taxes (excluding that generated by alternative products such as heat-not-burn, nicotine pouches, and e-vapor) until the global settlement amount is paid in full. As stated in the Proposed Plan, the issue of allocation of the CAD 32.5 billion aggregate settlement amount among RBH, ITL, and JTIM ("Allocation Issue") remains unresolved. RBH and its affiliates, including PMI and its indemnitees, would obtain a release of claims relating to the manufacture, marketing, sale, or use of or exposure

to, RBH’s combustible and traditional smokeless tobacco products based on conduct prior to the effective date of the Proposed Plan; related litigation would also be dismissed—including those actions described in the section below entitled “Stayed Litigation – Canada.” Alternative product businesses (including heat-not-burn, e-vapor, and nicotine pouches) would be transferred to an RBH affiliate or otherwise maintained separately from RBH's combustible business. The Proposed Plan also contains a number of operating covenants that would govern RBH’s business going forward until the settlement amount has been paid.

On January 15, 2025, RBH’s court-appointed monitor filed a motion seeking an order by the CCAA court approving and sanctioning the Proposed Plan and authorizing and directing the monitor, among others, to take all steps and actions necessary and appropriate to implement the Proposed Plan (“Sanction Motion” and the requested order, the “Proposed Sanction Order”). On January 24, 2025, RBH filed an objection to the Sanction Motion (“RBH Objection”). The RBH Objection argues that the Proposed Plan cannot be approved because it fails to resolve the Allocation Issue. The RBH Objection also states that, without an appropriate, fair and reasonable resolution of the Allocation Issue, RBH cannot presently consent to implementation of the Proposed Plan. To address the Allocation Issue, the RBH Objection seeks to amend the Proposed Sanction Order to include provisions (the “Proposed Allocation Provisions”) requiring that ITL and JTIM make payments to RBH from their retained working capital and net income after taxes over a period of years. ITL, JTIM, and certain claimant groups have opposed the Proposed Allocation Provisions set forth in the RBH Objection.

In the first class action pending in Canada, Conseil Québécois Sur Le Tabac Et La Santé and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, RBH and other Canadian cigarette manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants (the "Blais Class Action"). The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who suffers allegedly from certain smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and found that the class members’ compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion (approximately $10.6 billion), including pre-judgment interest. The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion (approximately $2.1 billion) including pre-judgment interest). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $62,000) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $21,000) to RBH. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members. RBH appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $155 million) to cover both the Létourneau and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in installments through March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $520 million) in installments through June 2017. JTI Macdonald Corp. was not required to furnish security in accordance with plaintiffs’ motion. The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court’s judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal.

On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court’s findings of liability and the compensatory and punitive damages award while reducing the total amount of compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion (approximately $9.3 billion), including interest due to the trial court’s error in the calculation of interest. The compensatory damages award is on a joint and several basis with an allocation of 20% to RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion (approximately $1.9 billion), including pre-judgment interest). The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s findings that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking and by conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of smoking. The Court of Appeal further held that the plaintiffs either need not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults were a cause of the class members’ injuries. In accordance with the judgment, defendants were required to deposit their respective portions of the damages awarded in both the Létourneau case described below and the Blais case, approximately CAD 1.1 billion (approximately $754 million), into trust accounts within 60 days. RBH’s share of the deposit was approximately CAD 257 million (approximately $194 million). PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $194 million in its consolidated results, representing $142 million net of tax, as tobacco litigation-related

In the second class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Létourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, RBH and other Canadian cigarette manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants (the "Létourneau Class Action"). The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $90 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $32 million) to RBH. The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at 918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims with sufficient accuracy. The trial court found that a claims process to allocate the awarded punitive damages to individual class members would be too expensive and difficult to administer. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court’s findings of liability and the total amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million (approximately $39 million), including interest to RBH. See the Blais description above for further detail concerning the security order pertaining to both Létourneau and Blais cases and the impact of the decision on PMI’s financial statements.

In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.

In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits.

In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.

In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint.

In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.

The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.

In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits.

In the first health care cost recovery case pending in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, Canada, filed January 24, 2001, we, RBH, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the government of the province of British Columbia, brought a claim based upon legislation enacted by the province authorizing the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, resulting from a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the second health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Brunswick v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Court, New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, filed March 13, 2008, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of New Brunswick based on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the law introduced in British Columbia that authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the third health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Canada, filed September 29, 2009, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Ontario based on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia and New Brunswick that authorize the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the fourth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. Johns, Canada, filed February 8, 2011, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the fifth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Attorney General of Quebec v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Superior Court of Quebec, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Quebec based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the sixth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty in Right of Alberta v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Queen's Bench Alberta, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Alberta based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the seventh health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, Inc., et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Judicial Centre, Canada, filed May 31, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Manitoba based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the eighth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, The Government of Saskatchewan v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatchewan, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Saskatchewan based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the ninth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Prince Edward Island v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (General Section), Canada, filed September 10, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Prince Edward Island based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the tenth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Canada, filed January 2, 2015, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Nova Scotia based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

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 resolved cases have been terminated in our favor and only a small number of cases remain pending. The pending cases include nine proposed class actions, 17 health care cost recovery cases, one public civil action, and individual cases. 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, four were initially decided in favor of plaintiffs and remain on appeal, or are subject to an appeal. These four cases include the Blais Class Action and the Létourneau Class Action, described above under the caption "Smoking and Health Litigation — Canada," and two individual cases where final resolution in the amount of the verdict would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements, including our results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

Smoking and Health Proposed Class Actions: These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs on behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes. 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 licit activity, failure to state a claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations.

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.

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 for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, 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 for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. We are in the process of challenging 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 for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, 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 for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, 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 for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, 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 the Plaintiff a de novo appeal in 2021 and determined that the appellate proceedings will take place in stages: wrongful conduct/product defect allegations first, then causation and finally issues such as standing/direct action. The plaintiff's appeal remains pending.

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.

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.

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. 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 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

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. He 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. 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 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. He 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. 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 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, 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, which the Court ordered on October 3, 2024. 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.

District of Columbia Attorney General Investigation: On June 11, 2024, Swedish Match North America LLC received a subpoena from the office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia (“D.C.”). The subpoena requested, among other things, information concerning Swedish Match North America LLC’s compliance with D.C.’s licensing regulations, age-verification requirements, and prohibition on the sale of flavored tobacco products, including with respect to ZYN nicotine pouches. Swedish Match North America LLC cooperated with the investigation, and on December 12, 2024, it executed an assurance of voluntary compliance with the office of the Attorney General to resolve the Attorney General's investigation, without admitting liability or

On November 18, 2024, a putative class action, Neumark v. Swedish Match North America LLC, was filed before United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint named Swedish Match North America LLC as the defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Swedish Match North America LLC violated federal and state antitrust laws by, among other things, driving a competitor from the market through purportedly baseless litigation and entering into an allegedly anticompetitive agreement with PMI whereby PMI, through an indirect subsidiary, acquired Swedish Match North America LLC and eliminated itself as a competitor in the U.S. nicotine pouch market. Plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, state antitrust law, and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to represent (i) all natural persons, businesses, entities, and corporations in the United States who purchased ZYN at retail during the class period; and (ii) all natural persons, businesses, entities, and corporations in the United States who live in states that have certain antitrust statutes who purchase ZYN at retail during the class period. Plaintiff is seeking damages (including treble damages as available under antitrust laws), costs, attorneys’ fees, disgorgement of profit, pre- and post-judgment interest, and declaratory and injunctive relief (including a declaration that the acquisition of Swedish Match North America LLC by PMI is unlawful and must result in divestiture or be enjoined). On January 15, 2025, Swedish Match North America LLC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Subsequently thereto, Plaintiff informed Swedish Match North America LLC that he will file an amended complaint, which is due on February 10, 2025 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.

The Department of Special Investigations of the government of Thailand ("DSI") conducted an investigation into alleged underpayment by Philip Morris (Thailand) Limited ("PM Thailand") of customs duties and excise taxes relating to imports from Indonesia covering the period 2000-2003. On January 26, 2017, the Public Prosecutor filed charges against PM Thailand and its former Thai employee in the Bangkok Criminal Court alleging that PM Thailand and its former employee jointly and with the intention to defraud the Thai government under-declared import prices of cigarettes to avoid full payment of taxes and duties in connection with import entries during the period from January 2002 to July 2003. The government sought a fine of approximately THB 19.8 billion (approximately $584 million). In May 2017, Thailand enacted a new customs act. The new act, which took effect in November 2017, substantially limits the amount of fines that Thailand could seek in these proceedings. PM Thailand believes that its declared import prices are in compliance with the Customs Valuation Agreement of the World Trade Organization and Thai law, and that the allegations of the Public Prosecutor are inconsistent with several decisions already taken by Thai Customs and a Thai court. Trial in the case began in November 2018 and concluded in December 2019. In March 2020, the trial court found our subsidiary guilty of under-declaration of the prices and imposed a fine of approximately THB 130 million (approximately $3.9 million). The trial court dismissed all charges against the individual defendant. In April 2020, as required by Thai law, our subsidiary paid the fine. This payment is included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets and negatively impacted net cash provided by operating activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows in the period of payment. Our subsidiary filed an appeal of the trial court's decision. In addition, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal of the trial court's decision challenging the dismissal of charges against the individual defendant and the amount of the fine imposed. The appellate court issued its decision on the appeals on January 31, 2023. The appellate court affirmed the findings of under-declaration of import prices of cigarettes but reduced the fine imposed by the trial court. The appellate court directed the Public Prosecutor to coordinate with customs officials to calculate such reduced fine in accordance with the appellate court’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the acquittal of the individual defendant. Our subsidiary has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Thailand. The Public Prosecutor has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Thailand challenging the dismissal of charges against the individual defendant and the amount of the fine. Thailand is required to refund any payment made by our subsidiary in excess of any fine assessed by the courts.

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. BAT 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 $51 million) in damages. After various postponements, the trial started on September 25, 2023, and is expected to continue in 2025 through a series of evidentiary hearings. PM Italia believes it has strong defenses to the charges against it and will defend them vigorously.

The Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation filed a petition before the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Region seeking the suspension of corporate rights that Megapolis Distribution B.V. (“MDBV”), a legal entity incorporated in the Netherlands, held, pursuant to Dutch law, in JSC TK Megapolis (formerly CJSC TK Megapolis), which is the distributor of PMI’s products in Russia. On July 18, 2024, the court admitted the petition. On August 8, 2024, the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Region granted the forced localization, as requested by the Ministry of Industry and Trade. As a result, MDBV's interest and corporate rights in JSC TK Megapolis were transferred to JSC TK Megapolis. On December 5, 2024, JSC TK Megapolis registered the subsequent transfer of such interest and corporate rights to a PMI affiliate, ZAO Philip Morris Izhora. For additional information, see Note 6. Related Parties – Equity Investments and Other.

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 ($24 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 infringement of JP7299432. FTKK sought an order stopping the importation of TEREA consumables. FTKK did not in its application seek any monetary damages or costs. PMJL entered an appearance in the proceeding as an interested party and filed its response to FTKK's application on January 31, 2024. The Customs hearing was held on May 28, 2024. On June 27, 2024 expert advisors to Customs provided their opinion that the patent at issue was not infringed. On June 28, 2024, FTKK withdrew its Customs application. The proceeding is now concluded. On January 26, 2024, PMJL filed a declaratory judgment action in Tokyo District Court seeking a declaration that JP7299432 is invalid and/or not infringed. The declaratory judgment action has now concluded following FTKK's waiver of its right to seek relief from PMJL for infringement of JP7299432, which effectively resolved PMJL's request for a declaration of no liability for infringement of that patent.

In July and August 2024, respectively, FTKK filed two patent infringement actions against Sojitz, PMJL’s importer and distributor, for alleged infringement of two patents by TEREA consumables. FTKK asserts a claim for damages. PMJL is obligated to indemnify Sojitz for damages and intervened in the matters. Merits briefing in the matters commenced in December 2024. In November and December 2024, FTKK filed seven additional patent infringement actions against Sojitz for alleged infringement of seven new FTKK patents by TEREA and SENTIA consumables. FTKK asserts a claim for damages in these actions. PMJL is obligated to indemnify Sojitz for damages and intervened in the matters. Merits briefing in these matters is expected to commence in the first half of 2025. On November 27, 2024, we were informed that FTKK filed a new application with Tokyo Customs against Sojitz, PMJL’s importer and distributor, on the basis of alleged infringement of another FTKK patent. FTKK is seeking an order stopping the importation of TEREA and SENTIA consumables. At this time, FTKK is not seeking any monetary damages or costs. PMJL has entered an appearance in the proceeding as an interested party and filed its opposition to FTKK’s application on January 9, 2025. On January 9, 2025, PMJL and Sojitz filed a declaratory judgment action against FTKK in Tokyo District Court with respect to the patent at issue in the pending Tokyo Customs matter on the basis that the relevant patent is not infringed or is invalid. 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.