Photo of Agustin Rodriguez

Agustin Rodriguez

Subscribe to Agustin Rodriguez's Posts

Agustin is sought after by clients for his strategic counsel on their most challenging competitive and regulatory compliance issues, including tobacco Master Settlement Agreement issues, federal and state enforcement investigations, licensing and excise tax issues, developing compliance programs, and evaluating advertising and marketing practices. A partner in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group as well as its Tobacco and Cannabis law practices, he represents manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and suppliers in all aspects of their businesses, including regulatory compliance, FDA requirements, administrative disputes involving federal or state governmental entities, mergers and acquisitions, commercial agreements, and taxation matters.

Contact:Read more about Agustin Rodriguez

In September, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it has launched a pilot program aimed at streamlining the agency’s review of certain premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) for modern oral nicotine pouches.

The announcement notes that evidence suggests nicotine pouches can help adults switch away from more harmful tobacco products. Although nicotine pouch PMTAs will still be subject to the traditional case-by-case review, FDA says the pilot program will “increase efficiency by focusing review on the most critical elements for this product category to determine whether permitting the marketing of a product is appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

In May, we wrote about the Trump administration’s first major enforcement action involving the importation of unauthorized e-cigarettes, in which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized products valued at nearly $34 million. FDA and CBP have once again seized unauthorized e-cigarettes in Chicago, but this time the estimated retail value was $86.5 million — the largest seizure of its kind. This enforcement action is consistent with a statement on FDA’s website: “[e]nforcing against unauthorized ENDS products, including unauthorized products popular with youth, are [sic] among our highest enforcement priorities.” FDA maintains that decisions about whether to take enforcement action will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis after considering youth use and other risk factors.

This article was originally published on August 29, 2025 on Law360 and is republished here with permission.

On June 20, in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that marketing denial orders issued by the FDA regarding new tobacco products can be challenged not only by the applicants — typically, the manufacturer or importer of the products — but also by retailers of such products.[1]

On August 21, 2025, NJOY, LLC (NJOY), a subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that the agency has unlawfully delayed rendering a decision on supervisory review of its June 2022 marketing denial order (MDO) for certain flavored, disposable electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).

As we recently covered here, FDA has struggled to control the proliferation of ENDS products that are not in compliance with premarket authorization requirements. Flavored illicit disposable ENDS have been particularly dominant in the face of lacking federal enforcement. This litigation is significant because it highlights another key reason for the illicit products’ dominance: FDA’s failure to timely act on premarket submissions for flavored ENDS.

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 early August, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the civil money penalty (CMP) provision in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) for tobacco products, 21 U.S.C. § 333(f)(9), is unconstitutional. Specifically, the court found that the FDCA improperly allows the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to bring an administrative action to collect CMPs because the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in such cases.

Over the past two years, at least 14 states have enacted laws requiring manufacturers of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) to certify the status of their federal premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) in order to be sold in the state. This year, several of these laws have been challenged, and a clear split is beginning to emerge among state courts regarding whether the state laws are enforceable.

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.

In June, the Appellate Court of Illinois upheld an assessment of over $314 million against Sam’s Club for unpaid county cigarette excise taxes, including a 10% late fee, a 25% penalty, and accrued interest. The assessment arose from Sam’s Club’s alleged failure to pay taxes on cigarettes that it sold to out-of-county retailers from 2009 to 2016. Following the June ruling, the company now appears poised to bring its arguments to the state’s highest court in a case illustrating the ambiguities of state and local excise taxation laws.