Hearings on the merits of the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) proposed cannabis rescheduling, initially set to begin this month, have been cancelled. The preliminary hearing period has been littered with accusations that the DEA improperly excluded certain parties from participating, that the DEA itself does not adequately support rescheduling, and that the DEA engaged in improper ex parte communications with anti-rescheduling parties.
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.”
In the fifth episode of our 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Nick Ramos is joined by Jean Smith-Gonnell, the leader of the firm’s Cannabis Industry practice to discuss significant regulatory updates in the cannabis industry from 2024 and the potential impacts of the recent election on the industry in 2025.
The Colorado Attorney General’s (AG) Office recently entered into a settlement agreement with Bee’s Knees Enterprises, LLC, dba Bee’s Knees CBDs, addressing allegations of violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA). The CCPA generally prohibits deceptive trade practices, including false representations or advertising, and allows for public or private enforcement and civil penalties. The settlement agreement resolves claims against Bee’s Knees without admitting liability.
Last month, California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta announced the awardees for the 2024-2025 Tobacco Grant Program, a program spearheaded by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) that aims to support local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to reduce illegal tobacco sales and usage, particularly among minors. Bonta also provided an update on “Operation Up in Smoke,” a comprehensive law enforcement operation targeting illegal tobacco sales. These updates illustrate that California continues to prioritize coordinated law enforcement efforts against businesses that make illegal tobacco sales, particularly to minors.
A consumer class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against EVO Brands, LLC and PVG2, LLC, both doing business as Puff Bar. The lawsuit alleges that Puff Bar violated state consumer protection laws by engaging in deceptive marketing practices aimed at youth, and by misleading consumers about the legality and safety of their synthetic nicotine e-cigarettes.
In recent years, federal and state governments have taken action to make marijuana research easier. These actions are a step in the right direction, and researchers operating in the marijuana space must be aware of the regulatory requirements that are associated with conducting such research. In this article, we discuss some of the key considerations related to conducting marijuana research.
What Happened
On September 14, Virginia’s Attorney General (AG) Jason Miyares issued a letter to the registered agent of the Good Vibes Shop, a Radford, VA store, for selling tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products without proper labeling and packaging. The AG’s letter alleges that the store’s THC products lacked child-resistant packaging and appropriate labeling, including ingredient lists, THC content, and age restrictions, in violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA). As we have recently discussed, the AG’s letter is part of a broader effort among states to protect consumers amid the evolving federal and state cannabis regulatory landscape.
Earlier this month, 20 Democratic state attorneys general (AG) filed an amicus brief supporting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) marketing denial orders (MDOs) of premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs) for flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS or e-cigarettes) currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief not only demonstrates which side these states support, but also identifies specific enforcement priorities for these states.
On August 1, Missouri Governor Michael Parson issued Executive Order 24-10 (the EO), a bold move aimed at addressing consumer safety concerns surrounding unregulated psychoactive cannabis products. The EO sparked a legal battle with the Missouri Hemp Trade Association (MO Hemp), which claims that by designating these products as adulterated and imposing an embargo under the EO, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) violated Missouri law. The governor’s action is yet another example of a state taking aggressive steps to address gaps left by the lack of federal regulations to ensure consumer safety in the burgeoning industrial hemp industry.