Concerns over consumer protection are mounting as the sales of intoxicating hemp products continue to rise. In response to a fragmented regulatory landscape that has led to inconsistent enforcement and compliance challenges, state attorneys general are stepping in to fill the void left by the absence of comprehensive federal regulations. These state-level actions aim to
On August 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided a case addressing Nebraska’s authority to require tribal cigarette manufacturers that are not parties to the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) to comply with the state’s escrow statute with respect to cigarettes sold in Indian country. See HCI Distrib., Inc. v. Peterson, No. 23-2311 (8th Cir., Aug. 2, 2024).
We have previously reported on the proliferation of tobacco product flavor bans imposed by localities and subsequent legal challenges throughout the U.S. See Oregon Court Upholds Local Tobacco Product Flavor Ban; Troutman Pepper Tobacco Team Featured in Vapor Voice Post on Ninth Circuit’s Holding that L.A. County’s Flavor Ban Is Not Preempted; Philadelphia
The landscape of tobacco product and cannabis flavor bans or restrictions varies significantly across the country. In both industries, some states restrict all or some flavors in all types of products, while other states restrict all or some flavors in some, but not all, products. Below, we provide a high-level overview of the flavor ban and restriction landscape in both industries. As we will discuss, there is a wide disparity between cannabis and tobacco product flavor bans or restrictions and, where they exist, there appears to be more flexibility among cannabis flavor restrictions than for tobacco product flavor bans or restrictions.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently upheld, in a unanimous decision, the town of Brookline’s ordinance banning the sale of tobacco and e-cigarette products to anyone born after Jan. 1, 2000 (the Tobacco Sales Ban). Brookline is the first U.S. locality to impose a tobacco sales ban based on a specific date.
In a recent ruling, the California Court of Appeal largely affirmed a lower court’s decision from March 2022, finding that Ashford University (now known as University of Arizona Global Campus), an online, for-profit college, had engaged in deceptive recruitment practices vis-à-vis veterans eligible for federal GI Bill educational benefits. California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta initiated the action in November 2017, alleging that Ashford University had caused harm to a significant number of students, many of whom were veterans, by disseminating false and misleading statements about career outcomes, cost and financial aid, pace of degree programs, and transfer credits.
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) most recent regulatory agenda, it plans to finalize a proposed rule that would make significant changes to requirements applicable to educational institutions that enroll students utilizing VA benefits, such as under the extremely popular Chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill and Chapter 31 Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) programs, both of which pay tuition and fees directly to schools. The new regulations, which are expected to become final in April and go into effect shortly thereafter, will implement the Veterans Benefits and Transition Act of 2018. As the Congressional Research Service explained, that bill made “a number of changes to educational benefits.”
As we previously reported, the Treasury Department released a 2022 report on Competition in the Markets for Beer, Wine, and Spirits (the Competition Report) recommending, in part, that the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) revive or initiate rulemaking to consider labeling requirements that include alcohol and nutritional information per-serving, major food allergens, and/or ingredients. TTB has announced that it will hold two virtual listening sessions on this topic on February 28, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., EST; and February 29, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., EST. The deadline to register to virtually attend either session is February 27, 12 p.m., EST,. Interested parties may register for either session here. These listening sessions present a unique opportunity to provide input to TTB at the early stages of a rulemaking that could potentially affect labels across the industry.
We recently discussed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products’ (CTP) strategic plan intended to guide CTP’s activity for the next five years. On the same day, CTP released its annual regulation and policy guidance agenda, which “outlines rules and guidance documents that are in development or planned for development.” Below, we discuss CTP’s current priorities for new regulations. CTP’s policy agenda is important because it identifies the areas CTP views as most in need of regulation or guidance, and the key actions it plans to take in those areas.
Recently, NJOY LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against more than 30 foreign and domestic defendants that manufacture, market, distribute, and sell tobacco products in an (indirect) effort to force them to comply with federal and state laws. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, RJR) also recently filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against more than 25 foreign and domestic manufacturers, distributors, and retailers (collectively, the respondents) that seeks to prevent the import and resale of certain tobacco products. These lawsuits serve as two examples of how industry is trying to take independent legal action to target allegedly noncompliant actors and force them to comply with applicable law.