Significant Cases

Subscribe to Significant Cases via RSS

In September, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told industry that it would begin enforcing the agency’s cigarette graphic warning rule in December 2025 in an enforcement policy outlined in a short guidance document. Although a federal district court previously found the rule unconstitutional, an appeals court reversed that decision and the final rule is now in effect. In its guidance, FDA says that it will not begin enforcing until December 2025 at the earliest, but we believe it likely that the rule might yet again be postponed or vacated, as it remains the subject of ongoing litigation. Continue Reading FDA Says Agency Will Enforce the Cigarette Graphic Warning Rule in December 2025, But Pending Litigation Could Still Derail Those Plans

In August, a group of tobacco companies filed a petition for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of a lower court’s holding that the First Amendment does not prohibit the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from requiring graphic warnings on cigarette packs. As we noted in prior coverage, the March 2020 FDA rule at issue would require new textual, health warning statements alongside color, photorealistic images displayed on the top 50% of the front and rear panels of cigarette packs and the top 20% of cigarette advertisements.Continue Reading Industry Urges SCOTUS to Consider FDA Graphic Cigarette Warnings

In late June, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana held that federal law preempts the Montana Attorney General (AG) from removing the cigarette brands of Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. (Grand River) from the state tobacco directory based on Grand River’s alleged violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). The FDCA preempts state law actions based solely on FDCA violations if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not already found that such violations exist, the court explained.Continue Reading Federal Court Rules Montana AG Preempted from De-Listing Cigarette Manufacturer

On April 2, three advocacy organizations filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking an order directing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to promulgate its already-proposed rule banning menthol as a characterizing flavor in combustible cigarettes. The case comes as FDA has missed several internal deadlines for promulgating a final rule on the topic.Continue Reading Advocacy Organizations Sue FDA Over Delay in Menthol Cigarette Ban

In early January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc in Wages & White Lion Investments, L.L.C. v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, held that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) marketing denial order (MDO) of petitioner’s premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).Continue Reading En Banc Fifth Circuit Solidifies Circuit Split on Flavored ENDS Product MDOs

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently filed new injunction and civil money penalty proceedings against unauthorized, flavored e-liquids and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) manufacturers and retailers.  The agency has been criticized for not doing enough to fight the sale of unauthorized vapor products, but these actions should at least remind manufacturers and retailers that the agency’s warning letters are not empty threats.Continue Reading FDA Continues ENDS Enforcement with New Injunction and Civil Money Penalty Proceedings

Over the last decade, hundreds of localities have passed ordinances restricting or prohibiting the sale of some or all types of tobacco products. Some of these ordinances have been challenged in court, but, in most cases, the localities have prevailed. In this case, a group of retailers (the Retailers), sued Multnomah County, Oregon (the County) in January 2023 alleging that the County’s flavored tobacco product ban was unlawful. Earlier this month, consistent with the overall trend, the court ruled against the Retailers and upheld the County’s flavor ban.Continue Reading Oregon Court Upholds Local Tobacco Product Flavor Ban

Last summer, we wrote about the Iowa Attorney General’s $133 million suit against the tobacco manufacturers that are signatories to the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA).  Brought in Iowa state court, this suit alleged that those manufacturers (commonly referred to as “Participating Manufacturers”) acted in bad faith by disputing (and delaying the ultimate payment of) the amounts they owe to the state under the MSA. On August 22, 2023, Iowa compromised its past and future claims under the lawsuit and joined 37 other states that have settled similar disputes. Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird announced that the state reached a settlement with the Participating Manufacturers that will result in the state receiving payments of more than $171 million over the next six years.  Continue Reading Iowa Reaches MSA Settlement with Tobacco Manufacturers, Ending 18-Year Legal Dispute

Yesterday, August 9, 2023, Judge Amit P. Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued his decision vacating the decision of the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to “deem” premium cigars covered by FDA’s 2016 rule that swept all tobacco products under the same set of regulations.  In previous decisions, the District Court already had vacated the portions of the Deeming Rule that required premium cigars to display health warnings on packaging and advertising and to engage in the burdensome premarket authorization process.  Continue Reading U.S. District Court Vacates FDA Deeming Rule With Respect To Premium Cigars

Published in Law360 on June 27, 2023. © Copyright 2023, Portfolio Media, Inc., publisher of Law360. Reprinted here with permission.

On May 11, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Inc. went on the offensive to keep its new line of nonmenthol cigarettes marketed with language like “crisp,” “smooth” and “mellow” on store shelves in California.[1]

This suit, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Bonta, seeks declaratory relief in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, that California’s attorney general misinterpreted and misapplied the state’s ban on flavored tobacco products, and incorrectly concluded that R.J. Reynolds’ new products violate this ban.Continue Reading What RJ Reynolds’ Calif. Suit Means for Tobacco Regulation