Photo of Agustin Rodriguez

Agustin Rodriguez

Subscribe to Agustin Rodriguez's Posts

Agustin is sought after by clients for his strategic counsel on their most challenging competitive and regulatory compliance issues, including tobacco Master Settlement Agreement issues, federal and state enforcement investigations, licensing and excise tax issues, developing compliance programs, and evaluating advertising and marketing practices. A partner in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group as well as its Tobacco and Cannabis law practices, he represents manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and suppliers in all aspects of their businesses, including regulatory compliance, FDA requirements, administrative disputes involving federal or state governmental entities, mergers and acquisitions, commercial agreements, and taxation matters.

Contact:Read more about Agustin Rodriguez

On December 17, 2024, Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc., Global Source Distribution, LLC, and others filed a complaint[1] and motion for a preliminary injunction[2] in federal district court against the Iowa Department of Revenue (the Department) challenging Iowa House File 2677 (HF 2677), a law imposing certification and directory requirements on vapor products sold in Iowa. A hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for March 5. If the court rules in the plaintiffs’ favor, it could stay enforcement of the new law until the case is ultimately resolved. While the Department was previously scheduled to publish the vapor products directory on January 2 and begin enforcement on February 3, the Department has not published the directory, and its website indicates that it will not be enforcing the directory. The Department’s website states: “Publication and enforcement of Iowa’s vapor products directory is delayed until further notice. The Department will make an additional announcement before publication and enforcement of the vapor products directory begins. During the delay, manufacturers should continue to submit certification applications.”

Throughout 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) endeavored to curb sales of unauthorized electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in the U.S. In light of persistent demand for flavored ENDS — nearly all of which are unauthorized — there is little evidence that these enforcement efforts have reduced illicit sales. Indeed, some observers estimate that flavored ENDS account for more than 80% of all ENDS sales. With a new administration on the horizon, our team highlights two opportunities for FDA to step up its enforcement efforts: (1) focusing enforcement on imports and (2) authorizing premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) for flavored products.

In the ninth episode of our 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Michael Jordan, a member of the firm’s Tobacco + Nicotine practice, is joined by colleagues Bryan Haynes and Agustin Rodriguez to delve into the regulatory landscape of the tobacco industry in 2024 and what to expect in 2025. Bryan, head of the firm’s Tobacco + Nicotine practice, and Agustin, also a member of the Tobacco + Nicotine practice, discuss the increased state-level actions against illicit flavored e-cigarettes due to FDA’s inaction. They highlight efforts by state AGs to combat these products, including issuing letters to retailers and establishing product registries. The conversation also touches on the anticipated regulatory changes under the new administration, the potential impact on nicotine pouches, and the implications of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) and the upcoming escrow refunds for nonparticipating manufacturers. Bryan and Agustin provide insights into the evolving regulatory environment and the implications for the tobacco industry in the coming year.

In October, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that a law restricting the packaging of e-cigarettes violates the state constitution’s free speech protections. The decision illustrates the utility of free speech arguments against packaging requirements and the importance of state constitutions in regulatory challenges generally.

In September, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it would begin enforcing the agency’s cigarette graphic warning rule in December 2025, in an enforcement policy outlined in a short guidance document. Although a federal district court previously found the rule unconstitutional, an appeals court reversed that decision, and the final rule is now in effect. According to the guidance, FDA will not begin enforcement until December 2025 at the earliest, but we believe it likely that the rule might yet again be postponed or vacated, as it remains the subject of ongoing litigation.

In August, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a new proposed rule that would require importers of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products to provide an FDA-issued submission tracking number (STN) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for imports of such products. This rule could result in the denial of entry for ENDS imports for which the manufacturer has not submitted a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) to FDA.

On August 27, the New Jersey Attorney General (AG) and the Division of Consumer Affairs announced that the state had issued notices of violation and $4,500 civil penalty demands to 19 retailers across New Jersey for allegedly selling banned flavored vapor products. This is New Jersey’s first public enforcement of the state’s 2020 flavor ban, and New Jersey joins a number of other state AGs taking similar action across the U.S.

In August, a group of tobacco companies filed a petition for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of a lower court’s holding that the First Amendment does not prohibit the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from requiring graphic warnings on cigarette packs. As we noted in prior coverage, the March 2020 FDA rule at issue would require new textual health warning statements alongside color, photorealistic images displayed on the top 50% of the front and rear panels of cigarette packs and the top 20% of cigarette advertisements.

In June, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) argued in federal court that the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act requires tribal retailers to obtain state licenses to sell cigarettes on their own reservations. If accepted, ATF’s position would greatly expand the scope of state authority over tribal tobacco sales.

In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to transfer cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a change that could significantly affect current state cannabis programs. In response, the Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA) submitted a detailed comment letter to the DOJ requesting clarity on how rescheduling will impact these existing regulatory structures. An examination of CANNRA’s public comment offers insights for state-legal businesses into what the future may hold for the joint regulation of cannabis at the state and federal levels.