State Regulatory

Subscribe to State Regulatory via RSS

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.”

Throughout 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) endeavored to curb sales of unauthorized electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in the U.S. In light of persistent demand for flavored ENDS — nearly all of which are unauthorized — there is little evidence that these enforcement efforts have reduced illicit sales. Indeed, some observers estimate that flavored ENDS account for more than 80% of all ENDS sales. With a new administration on the horizon, our team highlights two opportunities for FDA to step up its enforcement efforts: (1) focusing enforcement on imports and (2) authorizing premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) for flavored products.

In the ninth episode of our 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Michael Jordan, a member of the firm’s Tobacco + Nicotine practice, is joined by colleagues Bryan Haynes and Agustin Rodriguez to delve into the regulatory landscape of the tobacco industry in 2024 and what to expect in 2025. Bryan, head of the firm’s Tobacco + Nicotine practice, and Agustin, also a member of the Tobacco + Nicotine practice, discuss the increased state-level actions against illicit flavored e-cigarettes due to FDA’s inaction. They highlight efforts by state AGs to combat these products, including issuing letters to retailers and establishing product registries. The conversation also touches on the anticipated regulatory changes under the new administration, the potential impact on nicotine pouches, and the implications of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) and the upcoming escrow refunds for nonparticipating manufacturers. Bryan and Agustin provide insights into the evolving regulatory environment and the implications for the tobacco industry in the coming year.

Bryan Haynes, Agustin Rodriguez, Michael Jordan and Zie Alere will be in attendance. 

Bryan will be speaking during the “Recent State Regulatory and Enforcement Activity: Filling Gaps or Impeding Progress” panel. The panel will discuss recent measures enacted by state and local legislators and regulators to combat the illegal e-cigarette…

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.

On August 27, the New Jersey Attorney General (AG) and the Division of Consumer Affairs announced that the state had issued notices of violation and $4,500 civil penalty demands to 19 retailers across New Jersey for allegedly selling banned flavored vapor products. This is New Jersey’s first public enforcement of the state’s 2020 flavor ban, and New Jersey joins a number of other state AGs taking similar action across the U.S.

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.