FDA

Subscribe to FDA via RSS

With power changing hands in Washington, D.C., what can marijuana industry members expect from the 119th Congress? Two GOP proposals from the 118th Congress may foreshadow the likely path for federal marijuana legalization. These bills — the “States Reform Act of 2023” and the “Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) 2.0 Act” —would explicitly support states’ legal marijuana regimes, while leaving states with the ultimate decision of whether to establish such regimes.

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 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.

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 late June, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana held that federal law preempts the Montana Attorney General (AG) from removing the cigarette brands of Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. (Grand River) from the state tobacco directory based on Grand River’s alleged violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). The FDCA preempts state law actions based solely on FDCA violations if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not already found that such violations exist, the court explained.

In the first half of 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has continued to ramp up efforts to limit sales of unauthorized electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). We previously reported on FDA’s heightened enforcement against sellers of unauthorized ENDS in 2023 and predicted that this pattern of enforcement would continue. A year-to-date review of 2024 shows that FDA is placing a high priority on action against unauthorized ENDS.

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…

Across states, lawmakers often embrace “medical” marijuana as a precursor to establishing a “recreational” marijuana market. Although marijuana remains illegal at the federal level — and would remain illegal even under the proposed rescheduling — federal regulators also recognize the therapeutic potential of certain marijuana-adjacent substances. At the federal level, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved one drug product derived from the cannabis sativa L. plant and three synthetic cannabis-related drug products. At the same time, 38 states and Washington, D.C., have established legal frameworks for access to medical marijuana. Comparing these frameworks to FDA’s drug approval process reveals fundamental differences between state and federal approaches to determining whether cannabis is “therapeutic.”