In June, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) argued in federal court that the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act requires tribal retailers to obtain state licenses to sell cigarettes on their own reservations. If accepted, ATF’s position would greatly expand the scope of state authority over tribal tobacco sales.

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.  

In the first half of 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continued ramping 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. 

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.

The Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act, 15 U.S.C. § 375 et seq., is a federal law with two primary objectives: (1) to prevent federal and state tax evasion on tobacco products, and (2) to prevent sales of tobacco products to minors. Government agencies, increasingly concerned about cheap, untaxed products getting into the hands of underage consumers, are using the PACT Act’s enforcement tools to crack down on noncompliant companies.

If you are involved in the online sale and/or shipping of tobacco products, here are five things you need to know about the PACT Act.

A couple of years ago we posted an overview of state licensing and excise tax considerations for tobacco companies. In this post, we take a closer look at state excise tax considerations. When approaching state excise tax issues, it may be helpful to establish a checklist to help manufacturers, distributors, and retailers determine the impact of these laws on their products and distribution models.

We recently reported that several state legislatures are considering bills to establish vapor product directories this year—namely Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia. Throughout January and early February, similar bills have been introduced in Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Nebraska, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia. Additionally, a bill in Oklahoma would update the state’s existing directory framework to be consistent with the proposals of these recent bills. The directories would allow states to prohibit the sale of vapor products that are not authorized by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) or subject to a pending premarket application. Like the proposals discussed in our previous coverage, these bills are intended to reduce the proliferation of illicit vapor products. 

This year, several state legislatures will consider bills to establish vapor product directories. Amid heightened scrutiny of illicit vapor products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), these product directory bills would create a mechanism for states to bar the sale of products that are not FDA-authorized or subject to a pending premarket application. Like state cigarette directories implemented in connection with the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, these directories would specify which vapor products are permitted to be sold in the state.

In 2021 we wrote about the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) plans to amend regulations governing Proposition 65 (Prop 65) short-form warning labels. On May 20, 2022, however, OEHHA notified the public that it was unable to complete the regulatory process within the required time period (i.e., one year of the date it was first noticed to the public), and that it instead intended to restart the process with a new regulatory proposal. OEHHA issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Clear and reasonable Warnings: Short-form Warnings on October 27, 2023, and on November 30, 2023 issued a notice that it will hold a public hearing on December 13, 2023.  The public may submit comments until December 20, 2023.