Other State Regulators

Subscribe to Other State Regulators via RSS

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.”

On November 21, the Supreme Court of Virginia entered a published order reversing a 14-3 en banc decision of the Court of Appeals of Virginia addressing the applicability of Virginia’s criminal laws regulating cybercrime. The decision in Commonwealth v. Wallace is the latest example of courts testing regulatory reach in the cybercrime arena.

Recently, Attorney General (AG) Matthew J. Platkin announced, in a joint press release with the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board (SACB), the adoption of a new sports betting policy related to combative sports. The policy aims to eliminate certain betting practices perceived as unethical and reinforce public trust in combative sports such as boxing, wrestling, and other related events.More than half of the states in the U.S. offer some form of legal sports betting. The proliferation of sports betting laws followed a 2018 Supreme Court decision striking down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which imposed a federal ban on sports betting. The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling allowed states legalize sports betting within their borders if they so desired. New Jersey was one of the first states to adopt its own comprehensive sports wagering law after the 2018 decision.The new policy follows recent concerns over the integrity of high-profile combative sports events. Most recently, the global phenomenon of Jake Paul’s defeat of Mike Tyson in an adjusted-rules boxing match raised questions about the fight’s integrity. Amid these concerns, Paul’s Most Valuable Promotions issued a statement refuting claims of match rigging, and asserting that the bout was a professional match sanctioned by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulations (TDLR).

In October, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that a law restricting the packaging of e-cigarettes violates the state constitution’s free speech protections. The decision illustrates the utility of free speech arguments against packaging requirements and the importance of state constitutions in regulatory challenges generally.

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 a landmark decision, the Georgia Supreme Court has expanded the Georgia Open Records Act (the Act) to include private businesses and contractors working with state and local government entities. The ruling in Milliron v. Antonakakis clarifies that public records held by nongovernment entities are subject to the same transparency requirements as government agencies. Consequently, businesses in sectors like construction, IT, health care, and consulting must navigate the Act’s complexities to avoid liability. This article explores the court’s decision and offers practical steps for compliance. For more insights, listen to our latest Regulatory Podcast episode, “Unveiling the Impact: How Georgia’s Open Records Act Affects Private Businesses.”

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.

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).