The alcoholic beverage industry has always been a visual business. A sun-drenched vineyard on a wine label, the amber glow of whiskey in a crystal tumbler, a frosted pint glass beading with condensation — these images are the currency of alcohol marketing. Now, artificial intelligence (AI) can generate all of them in seconds, at a fraction of the cost of a traditional photo shoot.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cigarette graphic health warning saga continues. On August 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, No. 25-40137, affirming the Eastern District of Texas’ order postponing the effective date of FDA’s 2020 cigarette graphic health warning rule pending a final decision on the merits. The decision delivers another significant setback for FDA’s long-running effort to require graphic images on cigarette packaging and advertisements — and provides clarity on the statutory limits of the agency’s authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA), as amended by the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA).
As our Tobacco + Nicotine team previously reported, FDA’s May 8, 2026 guidance (the 2026 Guidance or the Guidance) on enforcement priorities for certain unauthorized ENDS and nicotine pouch products created a path for products with pending premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) to remain on the market. That Guidance is now being challenged in federal court by advocacy organizations, threatening the viability of FDA’s enforcement discretion.
Over the last couple of years, we have written about a federal case brought by the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (the Tribe) (here, here, and here) involving key issues related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) authority to enforce the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act) against federally recognized Indian tribes and ATF’s interpretation of key sections of the PACT Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a federal district court’s decision ruling against the Tribe.
For years, we have written (here, here, here, and here) about the decade-long effort to vacate the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to “deem” premium cigars covered by FDA’s 2016 rule (the Deeming Rule), which swept all tobacco products under FDA authority. On April 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order that it characterized as “(hopefully) … the final chapter” in the litigation over how FDA regulates premium cigars. The parties have 30 days to appeal the order, but, if not, the order will stand.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued a decision strengthening the “sealed container” defense available to non‑manufacturing sellers in products liability cases. In Weaver v. AMV Holdings LLC, the court found in favor of a vape retailer and distributor after a lithium‑ion battery malfunctioned in a customer’s pocket, causing serious burns. For retailers and distributors — particularly those dealing with lithium‑ion batteries — this decision underscores the continued viability of sealed container defenses.
The Florida attorney general (AG) recently initiated legal proceedings against several Florida smoke shops, alleging violations of state law related to the sale and marketing of illegal nicotine products, particularly vapor products, to minors. The action targets multiple businesses, including 27 Smoke Shop Inc., A&A Smoke Shop LLC, Alami 9 LLC, Alami 10 LLC, Epic Novelty LLC, and Fuego Smoke Shop LLC. The complaint, filed in the Fifth Judicial Circuit, accuses these retailers of selling, shipping, or failing to remove from their inventory nicotine products that are classified as illegal contraband under Florida law, with a particular focus on products marketed to children.
On January 5, 2026, Colorado Attorney General (AG) Phil Weiser announced that MC Global Holdings and affiliated persons and entities (collectively, MC) had been fined for allegedly violating the terms of a May 2025 assurance of discontinuance. The defendants, who are engaged in manufacturing, packaging, labeling, distributing, and/or selling industrial hemp products under the brand Vivimu, agreed to a fine of $575,000, of which $500,000 will be suspended as long as they comply with the terms of the new agreement.
The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill) legalized industrial hemp for commercial use to support American farmers and create a regulated industrial hemp market. The 2018 Farm Bill defined “hemp” as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” The 2018 Farm Bill also removed hemp from the definition of “marihuana” under the Controlled Substances Act. Since 2018, many in the hemp industry have relied on language in the 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of “hemp” (sometimes referred to as the 2018 Farm Bill loophole) to take the position that it authorizes the production and sale of intoxicating, hemp-derived THC products (e.g., beverages, gummies, candies, etc.) that are derived from cannabis plants containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis. On October 24, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) sent a letter to congressional committee chairs, signed by 39 state and U.S. territory attorneys general (AGs), urging immediate legislative action to close the loophole.
An Ohio appellate court recently affirmed the dismissal of a case brought by the Ohio attorney general (AG) against Central Tobacco & Stuff Inc. (Central Tobacco), an e-cigarette retailer, in which the AG alleged that Central Tobacco sold e-cigarettes lacking FDA premarket authorization and violated the state’s Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) by failing to inform consumers about the lack of FDA authorization. See State ex rel. Attorney Gen. Dave Yost v. Cent. Tobacco & Stuff Inc., 2025-Ohio-4613 (Ct. App.). This appears to be a novel use of a state consumer protection law, which most states have, to attempt to enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The court concluded that federal law preempts Ohio’s ability to enforce FDCA premarket authorization requirements through the CSPA. The court’s decision may be relevant in other cases involving a state’s attempt to enforce FDA premarket authorization requirements through their consumer protection laws.