State Regulatory

Subscribe to State Regulatory via RSS

For years, we have written (here, here, here, and here) about the decade-long effort to vacate the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to “deem” premium cigars covered by FDA’s 2016 rule (the Deeming Rule), which swept all tobacco products under FDA authority. On April 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order that it characterized as “(hopefully) … the final chapter” in the litigation over how FDA regulates premium cigars. The parties have 30 days to appeal the order, but, if not, the order will stand.

On April 14, Iowa Attorney General (AG) Brenna Bird, leading a coalition of 13 state AGs, sent a pointed letter to Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover. Their message was clear: payment networks are expected to help shut down the U.S. market for unauthorized e‑cigarette products.

For financial services institutions that support e-cigarette merchants — card networks, sponsor banks, acquirers, independent sales organizations (ISOs), payment service providers (PSPs), and platforms — this letter is the latest signal of increased regulatory and enforcement risk for financial services companies that provide services to sellers of unauthorized e-cigarette products.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued a decision strengthening the “sealed container” defense available to non‑manufacturing sellers in products liability cases. In Weaver v. AMV Holdings LLC, the court found in favor of a vape retailer and distributor after a lithium‑ion battery malfunctioned in a customer’s pocket, causing serious burns. For retailers and distributors — particularly those dealing with lithium‑ion batteries — this decision underscores the continued viability of sealed container defenses.

California recently finalized changes to its Proposition 65 (Prop 65) warning rules that included significant changes to short-form warning statements for product labels. These changes directly affect nicotine‑containing products — including e‑cigarettes, e‑liquids, oral nicotine products, and other consumer goods that can expose consumers to nicotine.

The Florida attorney general (AG) recently initiated legal proceedings against several Florida smoke shops, alleging violations of state law related to the sale and marketing of illegal nicotine products, particularly vapor products, to minors. The action targets multiple businesses, including 27 Smoke Shop Inc., A&A Smoke Shop LLC, Alami 9 LLC, Alami 10 LLC, Epic Novelty LLC, and Fuego Smoke Shop LLC. The complaint, filed in the Fifth Judicial Circuit, accuses these retailers of selling, shipping, or failing to remove from their inventory nicotine products that are classified as illegal contraband under Florida law, with a particular focus on products marketed to children.

We recently covered this case here, in which a small manufacturer and retailer sued the Virginia attorney general (AG) and tax commissioner in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the vapor product directory law. See Nova Distro, Inc., et al. v. Miyares et al., No. 3:25-cv-857 (E.D.V.A.). There, we also noted another ongoing case challenging a similar law in North Carolina, for which oral argument is scheduled before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on January 29, 2026. See Vapor Technology Association, et al. v. Wooten et al., No. 25-1745 (4th Cir.).

In this episode of our special 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Chris Carlson is joined by colleagues Bryan Haynes and Agustin Rodriguez — members of our Tobacco and Nicotine Practice and RISE Practice Group — to review the year’s most consequential developments in the tobacco and nicotine space and what they mean heading into 2026.

On September 22, a group of 28 state AGs led by Iowa filed an amicus brief in Vapor Technology Association v. Wooten in support of North Carolina’s state directory law that prohibits the sale of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products or e-cigarettes that lack Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marketing authorization.  According to the brief, 15 states have already enacted laws similar to North Carolina’s ENDS directory law, and another 25 states are considering such legislation.

An Ohio appellate court recently affirmed the dismissal of a case brought by the Ohio attorney general (AG) against Central Tobacco & Stuff Inc. (Central Tobacco), an e-cigarette retailer, in which the AG alleged that Central Tobacco sold e-cigarettes lacking FDA premarket authorization and violated the state’s Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) by failing to inform consumers about the lack of FDA authorization. See State ex rel. Attorney Gen. Dave Yost v. Cent. Tobacco & Stuff Inc., 2025-Ohio-4613 (Ct. App.). This appears to be a novel use of a state consumer protection law, which most states have, to attempt to enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The court concluded that federal law preempts Ohio’s ability to enforce FDCA premarket authorization requirements through the CSPA. The court’s decision may be relevant in other cases involving a state’s attempt to enforce FDA premarket authorization requirements through their consumer protection laws.

In August, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized regulations to implement California’s unflavored tobacco list (UTL) law, which the state enacted in 2024. The new regulations include detailed filing requirements for manufacturers and importers to have their tobacco products legally sold in California.

The deadline for applicants to be considered for the initial publication of the UTL is October 9, 2025.