On August 12, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered Match Group, owners and operators of online dating platforms such as Match.com, OkCupid, PlentyOfFish, The League, and others, to pay $14 million. This settlement resolves the FTC’s 2019 complaint accusing Match of misleading claims involving guarantees and onerous subscription cancellation processes, contrary to the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA).
We recently wrote about a federal case 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. In addition to appealing the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s decision, we noted that the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (the Tribe) asked the district court to require ATF to remove it from the agency’s PACT Act noncompliant list (NCL) and prevent ATF and the other defendant, the Department of Justice from taking action against it pending its appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 30, the federal district court denied the Tribe’s request.
In July 2025, a bipartisan coalition of 32 state and territorial attorneys general (AG) sent a letter to congressional leaders urging the passage of the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act. Their letter emphasizes that the legislation — a long-stalled federal reform — would provide legal clarity and a safe harbor for banks and financial institutions to serve state-licensed cannabis businesses. Such clarity, they argue, is urgently needed to address public safety risks and to improve the states’ ability to regulate and tax the booming cannabis industry.
In 2023, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) placed Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (Twenty-Nine Palms), a federally recognized Indian tribe that sells cigarettes on sovereign reservations in California, on the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act’s (PACT Act’s) noncompliant list (NCL). The PACT Act generally prohibits common carriers from shipping products to or from companies on the NCL. After ATF placed Twenty-Nine Palms on the NCL, the tribe sued ATF and its parent agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in federal court. This case is worth following because it involves key issues related to ATF’s authority to enforce the PACT Act against federally recognized Indian tribes and ATF’s interpretation of key sections of the PACT Act.
At the end of a blockbuster term, the Supreme Court sharply limited the power of federal courts to issue so-called universal injunctions against government actors. The decision in Trump v. CASA (and related cases) did not foreclose federal courts’ power to enjoin federal policies that are likely unconstitutional but curtailed the reach of those injunctions to the parties (or potentially the plaintiff class) in a suit. The result will require affected parties to litigate rather than wait on potential widespread relief from courts in distant corners of the U.S.
On May 23, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued Syria General License 25 (GL 25), effectively lifting most sanctions imposed under the Syrian Sanctions Regulations (SSR) (31 C.F.R. Part 542). This move, foreshadowed by President Trump on May 13 during a speech in Riyadh, aims to support Syria’s economic recovery and reconstruction following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024. Accompanied by a set of frequently asked questions issued on May 28, GL 25 reflects a broader U.S. strategy to foster stability and align with the new Syrian government’s efforts for a “fresh start” and to rebuild.
In the first major enforcement action involving the importation of illegal tobacco products by the new administration, and on the heels of the appointment of the new acting director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products, FDA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized illegal e-cigarettes valued at nearly $34 million. This operation underscores the ongoing efforts by federal agencies to combat the influx of unauthorized tobacco products into the U.S.
We previously wrote about this case last January, here and here, when Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc., Global Source Distribution, LLC, and others filed a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction 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. On May 2, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined the Department from implementing and enforcing HF 2677’s vapor product directory provisions. The court held that the Department could, however, continue to enforce the provisions of HF 2677 requiring nonresident vapor product manufacturers not registered to do business in the state as a foreign corporation or business entity to appoint and continually engage an agent for service of process. The parties have a status conference before the court scheduled for May 29.
Our colleagues recently wrote about 14 memoranda from the new U.S. Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi to Department of Justice (DOJ) employees framing the DOJ’s current policies and enforcement priorities. In a memorandum addressing DOJ’s general charging, plea bargaining, and sentencing policy, the AG stated the following: “To free resources to address more pressing priorities, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) shall shift resources from its Alcohol and Tobacco Enforcement Programs to focus on matters relating to the other priorities set forth herein. No resources shall be diverted from the ATF’s regulatory responsibilities, such as federal firearms licenses and background checks.”
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.