In what appear to be the first restrictions of their kind, the state of California and the city and county of Denver have adopted bans on flavored tobacco products that cover not only products containing tobacco and nicotine, but also nicotinic alkaloids and nicotine analogs.
On January 21, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case addressing who may challenge Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marketing denial orders for new tobacco products.
Yet again, the premium cigar industry has prevailed in federal court against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As we have previously discussed here and here, FDA appealed a federal district court decision vacating its rule (the Deeming Rule) subjecting premium cigars to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act (TCA). On January 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) issued an opinion agreeing[1] with (i) the district court’s ruling that FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it sought to include premium cigars in its Deeming Rule and (ii) the district court’s vacatur of the Deeming Rule as applied to premium cigars, but it remanded the case to the district court to determine the appropriate definition of “premium cigar.” Now, the district court will reconsider the appropriate definition of “premium cigar,” which will ultimately determine the types of cigars that are not subject to the TCA and FDA’s Deeming Rule. In one potential setback for industry, the D.C. Circuit also stated that it understood the district court’s order as granting relief from user fees prospectively but that it does not read it as permitting the refunding of past user fee payments.
On January 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that Virginia’s hemp product restrictions do not violate federal law. The ruling is the latest defeat for the Virginia hemp industry’s efforts to overturn Virginia S.B. 903, a law intended to prohibit the sale of intoxicating hemp products like delta-8 and delta-10 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) gummies and beverages in the Commonwealth.
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 August, North Carolina-based cigarette importer, King Maker Marketing Inc., challenged a decision by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) that rejected its claims for more than $11 million in drawback duties as untimely.
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.
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 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.
“Hi, we’re with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and we’d like to take a look at your tobacco product sales invoices, shipping records, and PACT Act reports.”