On November 8, 2022, California voters approved a measure to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products, including e-liquids, in the state, with exceptions for flavored shisha used in hookah, premium cigars, and loose leaf tobacco. R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco industry entities filed suit on November 10, 2022 seeking an injunction and declaratory relief against the measure. On December 12, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the suit.
The California Restaurant Association (CRA) challenged the City of Berkeley's January 2020 amendment to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC), which prohibits natural gas infrastructure in most newly constructed buildings within Berkeley.
A group of Montana youth sued the State, arguing that its fossil fuel-based energy system contributes to climate change, violating their constitutional rights guaranteed under the Montana Constitution and the Public Trust Doctrine.
Cigar and pipe tobacco trade associations filed suit against the FDA, challenging its decision to deem premium cigars and pipe tobacco subject to the agency’s regulatory authority under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
December 4, 2019, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit suing e-cigarette manufacturer JUUL Labs, Inc. The lawsuit, filed in Hennepin County District Court, allege that JUUL violated multiple state consumer-protection laws, breached its duty of reasonable care, and created a public nuisance.
Beginning in 2017 youth consumption for electronic cigarettes significantly increased – driven in part by Juul’s marketing of flavored e-liquid pods, delivered through Juul devices which were much more portable and concealable than other ESD, and Juul’s use of social media platforms popular with youth and young people to market its products.
R.J. Reynolds challenges Attorney General Rob Bonta’s determination that four of its new products violate California’s flavor ban, S.B. 793.
The tobacco industry challenged a local flavored tobacco product ordinance adopted by the City of Edina, Minnesota, arguing that the ordinance is preempted by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
The tobacco industry challenged San Diego’s flavored tobacco product ordinance, arguing that the ordinance is expressly and impliedly preempted by the Tobacco Control Act.
Tobacco Industry challenges the County of Los Angeles’ flavored tobacco product sales restriction, arguing the ordinance is expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law.