On September 3 and Sept 5, 2020, Fresh Farms submitted 22 Premarket Tobacco Product Applications (PMTA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On January 4, 2021, FDA issued a Refuse-to-Accept (RTA) action against Fresh Farms’ PMTAs. Fresh Farms challenged the administrative decision on February 3, 2021, in the 9th Circuit.
Cigar and pipe tobacco trade associations filed suit against the FDA, challenging the deeming rule as it applies to cigars and pipe tobacco. The suit is ongoing, but has resulted in a suspension of warning labels for cigars and pipe tobacco and the premarket review process specifically for premium cigars.
E-cigarette industry trade association and smoke shop challenges the County of Los Angeles’ flavored tobacco product ordinance, arguing that the ordinance is preempted by federal law and is unconstitutionally vague.
Industry challenges the FDA’s 2020 graphic warning label rule on First Amendment grounds.
Industry trade association challenges City of Palmdale’s flavored tobacco product sales restriction, arguing that the ordinance is expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law.
Public health groups successfully challenged FDA’s 2017 guidance indefinitely extending premarket review deadlines.
An e-cigarette manufacturer and trade association challenged the deeming rule on constitutional grounds.
Public health groups sued the FDA to compel the agency to require graphic warning labels on cigarette packages and advertisements. The public health groups won. FDA appealed, but dropped the appeal after it issued a new graphic warning rule in March, 2020.
E-Cigarette manufacturers and distributors challenge the deeming rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment.
The Tobacco Control Act’s premarket authorization pathway does not violate the APA. Additionally, neither the pre-marketing authorization requirement applicable to modified risk products nor the free sample ban violate the First Amendment.
The legal issue in this case is whether San Francisco’s ballot measure, Proposition C – supported by JUUL Labs and purportedly a youth access law – would allow flavored e-cigarettes back onto store shelves in San Francisco, overturning city laws passed in 2019 and 2017 that were intended to ban e-cigarettes not regulated by the FDA and to keep products like Juul’s mango and cucumber nicotine pods out of the hands of teens.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Town of Yarmouth’s multi-step review process based on smelling, tasting, and physically examining tobacco products, including “concept flavors” such as Jazz, meets the evidentiary standard required by law to identify these products as flavored.
An e-cigarette user sued the FDA arguing that the deeming rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as well as the First and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
E-cigarette manufacturers and retailers challenged the deeming rule on Constitutional grounds.
E-cigarette manufacturer and retailer challenged the deeming rule under the U.S. Constitution.
An e-cigarette manufacturer challenged serval aspects of the FDA’s deeming rule. The case was dismissed without any rulings on the substantive issued raised.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Town of Johnston, Rhode Island, has the authority to enact an ordinance that removes flavored tobacco products from general stores and requires that they be sold in vape shops or smoking bans, and that prohibits tobacco retailers from accepting coupons or providing discounts for any tobacco product.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Town of Middletown, Rhode Island, has the authority to enact science-based public health laws to protect its residents – particularly its youth – from addiction to tobacco products and the toll of tobacco-related disease and death.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Town of Barrington, Rhode Island, has the authority to enact science-based public health laws to protect its residents – particularly its youth – from addiction to tobacco products and the toll of tobacco-related disease and death.
The legal issue in this case is whether the City of Philadelphia has the authority to implement a tax on soda and sugary drinks, levied on distributors of the products.