A Juul-funded coalition, in legal action Friday, asked a judge to order San Francisco to change the ballot wording and voter guide description of a Juul-backed measure that would allow the company to continue e-cigarette sales in the city. Juul contends the Department of Elections’ Proposition C wording in the voter materials is misleading.

Juul’s petition filed in San Francisco Superior Court marks an escalation of a months-long conflict between Juul, the nation’s largest e-cigarette maker, and officials in its hometown of San Francisco who want to crack down on the company over concerns that too many teens are getting addicted to e-cigarettes. City Attorney Dennis Herrera, also named in the petition, co-authored legislation that the Board of Supervisors passed in June, banning the sale of e-cigarettes until they are reviewed by the FDA. The FDA has given e-cigarette companies until 2020 to apply for the review.

Juul then authored and spent $4.3 million to sponsor Prop. C, which would trump the local ban and would allow continued sales, with some new regulations.

The petition takes issue with two things: the way the ballot question is worded, and the inclusion of a sentence slated to appear in the voter guide’s summary of the ballot measure. The matter will have to be decided by the judge before the Nov. 5 election materials are printed, typically by early October.

The ballot question, written by the city attorney’s office, is currently phrased: “Shall the city overturn the law passed by the Board of Supervisors suspending the sale of electronic cigarettes that lack required FDA authorization, and adopt new regulations on the sale, manufacture, distribution and advertising of electronic cigarettes in San Francisco?”

Attorneys for the Coalition for Reasonable Vaping Regulation, which is funded by Juul and filed the petition, say this is misleading because it implies e-cigarettes are unauthorized, when in fact the FDA allows the sale of the products and has required e-cigarette companies to apply by 2020 for a review. However, a federal judge recently found that the FDA failed its legal duty by postponing this deadline and thereby not enforcing a federal law that requires e-cigarettes to go through a regulatory review.

The summary, which is determined by the Ballot Simplification Committee, says Prop. C may repeal the city’s current ban on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes (such as the sweet and fruit-flavored e-cigarettes popular among teens).

Juul says Prop. C will not overturn the flavor ban, and it wants the sentence removed from the summary. Critics, including anti-tobacco advocates and public health experts, have taken issue with this, saying the ballot measure is written in a way that could overturn the ban on flavored e-cigarettes.

The Department of Elections and the Ballot Simplification Committee deferred to the city attorney’s office for comment.

The Juul-backed coalition also says Herrera has improperly sided with the ballot measure’s opponents; Herrera’s office says that while he has been consistently critical of Juul, he has not spoken publicly about the ballot measure specifically.

“Juul’s claims of bias are unfounded,” said John Coté, a spokesman for Herrera. “The work our office produced reflected our best professional judgment, and we stand by it unequivocally. ... The Ballot Simplification Committee is an independent body dedicated to giving voters clear, accurate information. The committee did that in this matter after a thorough public process. We’re confident the court will determine the language regarding the measure is accurate.”

Catherine Ho is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: cho@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @Cat_Ho