Photo of Nick Ramos

Nick Ramos

Subscribe to Nick Ramos's Posts

Nick draws on years of military leadership, project management, and legal experience to help clients solve difficult business problems from a legal perspective. His practical advice enables clients to navigate regulatory compliance and licensing issues, complex investigations, and high stakes enforcement actions that arise under state and federal law.

Follow:Read more about Nick RamosNick's Linkedin Profile

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.”

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.

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.

We recently had the opportunity to attend, and present at, the industry portion of the 2024 Federation of Tax Administrators Tobacco Tax Annual Conference in Mobile, Alabama.

Presentations at the conference included topics of interest to state tobacco tax administrators and industry (the agenda is located here). The conference was well attended by both industry members and state and federal agencies responsible for enforcing tobacco and nicotine laws. Our team has attended this conference for several years and it always provides a great opportunity for collaboration between government and industry, and this year was no different.

Agustin Rodriguez and Nicholas Ramos of the Troutman Pepper Tobacco Team will be attending the 2024 Federation of Tax Administration (FTA) Tobacco Section Annual Conference. This in-person event will be held in Mobile, Alabama from August 18-21, 2024, and presents a great opportunity for government and industry members to collaborate…

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).

In this post, we take a closer look at state tobacco and nicotine product licensing considerations. When approaching state licensing issues, it may be helpful to establish a checklist to help manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers determine the impact of these laws on their products and distribution models. State licensing requirements can be complicated but, with a basic understanding of the key issues described below and good practices, manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers can ensure they remain compliant.  

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.