Legislation

Subscribe to Legislation via RSS

Our team recently attended, and presented at, the 100th Annual Meeting of the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA) Tobacco Tax Section in Washington, D.C., which brought together state tobacco tax administrators, excise tax professionals, attorneys general, compliance officers, tax filing solution providers, and other industry stakeholders. Despite the challenge of navigating our Nation’s Capital in light of preparation for the Freedom 250 Grand Prix, we are glad we had the opportunity to attend and connect with colleagues to advance thought leadership in the tobacco and nicotine industry. The meeting included a line-up of speakers who discussed topics highly relevant to industry, and we wanted to highlight a few themes that emerged related to state vapor and nicotine product directories, nicotine analogues, enforcement, and destruction of illicit vapor products.

Earlier this fall, a small manufacturer and retailer (the Plaintiffs) sued Virginia Attorney General (AG) Jason Miyares and Tax Commissioner James Alex (the Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to enjoin their enforcement of Virginia’s vapor product directory regime, Va. Code Ann. §§ 59.1-293.14 to .21, which the General Assembly passed in 2024.

This litigation is a recent addition to the growing list of legal challenges to state vapor product directories around the country—and the second to arise in federal courts within the Fourth Circuit. Like these other ongoing challenges, the Virginia case raises the issue of whether these state directory regimes are preempted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

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.

Effective July 1, Mississippi will require all cigarette and ENDS manufacturers to provide annual certifications and have their products listed on a state directory in order for their products to be sold in the state. The law, enacted through HB 916, creates separate directories for cigarettes, including roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco, and Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) products, such as e-cigarettes and vapes.

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.