We are excited to announce the agenda for Keller and Heckman’s 2024 E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium. Click here to view the program agenda, and don’t forget to register by this Friday for your last chance to save $200!

Register now to join us Monday, January 29 – Tuesday, January 30, 2024, in Las Vegas, NV (right before TPE). You don’t want to miss this comprehensive seminar focused on legal and regulatory issues critical to the ENDS, nicotine, tobacco, CBD/hemp, and cannabis industries.

This year’s program will feature new, timely topics specifically designed to help vapor and deemed tobacco product manufacturers stay in compliance with rapidly evolving laws and policies. Agenda highlights for the program include:

  • New legislation, regulation, and enforcement of nicotine products, including oral products and ENDS products
  • The role of ENDS flavors in smoking cessation: evidence from longitudinal and cross-sectional studies
  • The importance of quantifying the risk to youth associated with your ENDS products
  • Challenging RTAs, RTFs, MDOs, and NSEs – Can you still appeal your denial?
  • FDA Litigation Update: Where does the industry stand?
  • FDA’s new Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practices (TPMP) Rule
  • Upcoming Federal ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars
  • FDA’s new guidance and proposed rulemakings
  • Enforcement Update: warning letters, civil money penalty orders, injunctions; strategies for responding and coming into compliance
  • Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) and Substantial Equivalence (SE) Report strategies for small businesses
  • Marketing plans, post-market surveillance, and youth-access prevention strategies
  • FDA Remote Regulatory Assessments and Inspections
  • Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act – Key Updates
  • New state laws (local flavor bans, licensing requirements, and state enforcement actions)
  • Federal Communications Commission Requirements Rules Applicable to Vapor Products
  • Updates on CBD/hemp, Delta-8, and cannabis regulation
  • Mapping the global cannabis product landscape: Implications for Quality and Regulation
  • Global Regulatory Update: China, the EU, and the UK
  • …and much more!

SEMINAR DETAILS

Dates
Monday, January 29 – Tuesday, January 30, 2024

Registration Fees
Super Early-Bird Rate: $999 if registered by Friday, December 1, 2023
Early-Bird Rate: $1,099 if registered by Friday, January 5, 2024
Standard Registration Rate: $1,199 if registered after January 5

Location
Embassy Suites by Hilton Convention Center Las Vegas
3600 Paradise Road
Las Vegas, NV 89169

Click here to book your hotel room. Keller and Heckman has negotiated a preferred room rate of $169 per night, plus tax, at the Embassy Suites by Hilton Convention Center Las Vegas. Please book your room by Friday, January 5, 2024, in order to take advantage of the negotiated room rate.

Group Discount
Register three or more people from the same company and receive 10% off the total registration fee. Contact maxwell@khlaw.com for instructions on how to receive the discount.

Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
CLE credit is available, pending individual state approval.

Certificate of Attendance
All seminar attendees will be eligible to receive a certificate of attendance upon completion of the course.

Cancellation Policy
Cancellations are accepted, and registration fees are refunded if notice is received by January 5, 2024. If notice is given after January 5, no refunds will be granted; however, substitutions are welcome.

For questions concerning the 2024 E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium, please contact:

Abby Maxwell-Morrisroe
Marketing and Events Specialist
maxwell@khlaw.com
202.434.4223

On August 29, 2023, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled against FDA on the Agency’s review of Fontem LLC’s “unflavored” (i.e., tobacco-flavored) myblu electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products, vacating FDA’s marketing denial orders (MDOs) for these products. For Fontem’s non-tobacco flavored myblu ENDS, however, the Court upheld FDA’s denial, deferring to the Agency’s general concerns surrounding “substantial risks of flavored products to youth.”

Under the Tobacco Control Act (TCA), a Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) applicant must demonstrate that the ENDS product is “appropriate for the protection of the public health” (APPH). Specifically, the TCA directs FDA to assess the public health impact of a new tobacco product “with respect to the risks and benefits to the population as a whole, including users and nonusers of the tobacco product, and taking into account – (A) the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products will stop using such products; and (B) the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products will start using such products.” 21 U.S.C. § 387j(c)(4). 

In April 2020, Fontem submitted PMTAs for its myblu Device Kit, as well as a variety of non-tobacco flavored and tobacco-flavored myblu liquid pods:

  • Tobacco-flavored myblu ENDS products:
    • myblu Device Kit
    • myblu Intense Tobacco Chill 2.5%
    • myblu Intense Tobacco Chill 4.0%
    • myblu Intense Tobacco 2.4%
    • myblu Intense Tobacco 3.6%
    • myblu Gold Leaf 1.2%
    • myblu Gold Leaf 2.4%
  • Non-tobacco flavored myblu ENDS products (not publicly disclosed due to potential confidential commercial information (CCI) issues)

Following a nearly two-year review period of the application, which included an FDA-issued, 22-item deficiency letter identifying FDA’s concerns and requesting additional information, FDA denied the applications for all of the above products in April 2022. Note: Although the Court characterizes “unflavored” ENDS as vaping products with “the same flavor as more traditional tobacco products—menthol or tobacco,” [Opinion at 4] the appeal did not cover FDA’s denial of the myblu menthol liquid pod, which recently received an MDO in July 2023. The DC Circuit opinion, which refers to tobacco and menthol-flavored ENDS as “unflavored,” reflects the common misperception that ENDS products, like traditional tobacco-leaf containing products, are inherently tobacco-flavored. In reality, however, ENDS products do not contain any tobacco, and the base ingredients (PG, VG) used in e-liquids do not impart a tobacco or any characterizing favor. Rather, all favors in ENDS, including tobacco favor, must be separately added to the e-liquid. To avoid further confusion, we refer to “tobacco-flavored” products accordingly in this post.

In vacating the MDO for the unflavored myblu ENDS products, the DC Circuit criticized FDA for its failure to perform a “holistic public health analysis” required by the TCA. Specifically, the Court held that the Agency cannot deny PMTAs for tobacco-flavored ENDS based on “highly technical” deficiencies or “for failing to provide very specific information about the physical properties of [the] products” without conducting the required statutory balancing of an application on public health grounds. As provided in the FDA press release concerning the Fontem myblu MDOs, the deficiencies were related to discrete items such as the stability studies, manufacturing-related concerns, or product design features.  

For these specific deficiencies related to the tobacco-flavored myblu products, the Court stated that if any technical or product-related “highly granular deficiencies” are essential to the public health standard and application, then the Agency must “require fine-grained requirements of all tobacco products” by “promulgating tobacco product standards or manufacturing regulations. Otherwise, the Agency must consider the overall public health consequences of the product.” Opinion at 23-24. The opinion goes on to state:

Congress established a comprehensive and interlocking scheme for the regulation and approval of tobacco products, defining the considerations the FDA must use to evaluate whether a product is appropriate for the protection of the public health and providing for a regulatory process that accounts for the competing interests regarding the production, marketing, and safety of tobacco products. Cf. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159–60 (2000) (emphasizing Congress had for decades “creat[ed] a distinct regulatory scheme for tobacco products”). The FDA cannot simply ignore Congress’s detailed directives when denying tobacco marketing applications.

Opinion at 24 (emphasis added).

The Court also took issue with FDA’s review process for the tobacco-flavored applications. At one point, the Court even stated that FDA’s deficiency letter suggested that providing the missing information “would be sufficient for the agency to approve Fontem’s products,” or for requesting a specific item and faulting Fontem for not providing another item that was not previously requested (such as quality control information for a different facility). Opinion at 22. By doing so, the Court criticized the Agency for acting arbitrarily and capriciously by “shifting the regulatory goalposts without explanation.” Opinion at 23. According to the DC Circuit, “[t]he lack of consistency and notice to regulated entities is another unlawful consequence of the agency’s departure from the holistic public health inquiry.” Id. at 24.  

The DC Circuit, however, upheld the denial of the non-tobacco flavored myblu products. In doing so, the Court reasoned that, for the flavored products, FDA “focused on the question central to the public health inquiry”— i.e., whether Fontem was able to show that the benefits of its flavored products to adult smokers outweighed the substantial risks of flavored products to youth. Because the primary study Fontem conducted failed, in FDA’s judgment, to show that its flavored products had any added benefit for adult smokers relative to unflavored products, the Court concluded that FDA acted consistent with the public health balancing required by the statute and denied Fontem’s petition.  

This recent ruling appears to emphasize a holistic public health review for tobacco-flavored (and menthol-flavored) products with consideration of all public health factors. At the same time, the decision upholds a comparative efficacy approach – which does not consider all the public health elements – for flavored ENDS products. Thus, the decision offers a bifurcated take on the statutory APPH analysis, emphasizing different factors based on the flavor classification of the product.

This decision may also impact another high-profile MDO challenge in the DC circuit: Juul Labs Inc. FDA issued an MDO in June 2022 denying PMTAs for Juul’s tobacco and menthol pods (3% and 5% nicotine), as well as the device. FDA alleged Juul’s PMTA contained insufficient and conflicting data regarding genotoxicity and potentially harmful chemicals. Juul countered that FDA had not reviewed up to 6,000 pages of its PMTA that addressed FDA’s concerns. The DC Circuit granted an emergency stay of MDO. FDA then issued its own administrative stay acknowledging “unique” scientific issues that warrant additional review. Juul filed a 21 CFR § 10.75 request for supervisory review detailing substantive and procedural errors in the MDO. FDA administratively stayed the MDO and is re-reviewing its denial (and the DC circuit MDO challenge is being held in abeyance in the meantime). As everyone waits to see whether FDA will rescind the MDO, this decision from the DC Circuit may impact FDA’s review. If the Agency does not rescind the MDO, Juul will likely proceed with an appeal, in which this Fontem decision will now serve as precedent.  

We will discuss this and other important FDA litigation at Keller and Heckman’s 2024 Annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium. Be sure to save the date: January 29-30, 2024, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Details and registration information can be found here.

On November 2, 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released data from the 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey (“NYTS”), a cross-sectional, school-based, self-administered, web-based survey of U.S. middle school (grades 6-8) and high school (grades 9-12) students. The NYTS has been conducted periodically during 1999–2009 and annually since 2011, and provides national data on estimates of tobacco product use among U.S. youth.

  • In 2023, data were collected from March to June 2023 from more than 22,000 students across 179 schools.
  • The data show a significant drop in high school vaping — the lowest in nearly a decade. Current e-cigarette use (defined as use on one or more days during the past 30 days) declined from 14.1% in 2022 to 10% in 2023 among high school students. More than half a million fewer U.S. high school students vaped in 2023 compared to 2022.
  • Among U.S. high school students, current overall tobacco product use also dropped in 2023 (16.5% in 2022 to 12.6% in 2023). In its News Release, FDA attributes this decline “primarily” to reduced e-cigarette use.
  • High school students’ current use of combustible tobacco products (e.g., traditional cigarettes) also declined in 2023 to 1.9, representing an all-time low for this tobacco product category.
  • Although a slight increase in the use of tobacco products generally was observed among middle school students, no statistically significant shift was observed from 2022-2023 for current use of any tobacco product type by middle school students, including e-cigarettes.
  • In sum, 10% of U.S. middle and high school students, or roughly 2.8 million youth, reported current use of any tobacco product in 2023. The 2023 numbers indicate a sharp decline from the 14.1% of high school students who reported current e-cigarette use in 2022. For more details on the trends in youth vaping, see Clive Bates’ summary here.
NYTS Survey (Year)Percentage of High School Students Reporting Current E-Cigarette UseEstimated Weighted Number of High School Students Reporting Current E-Cigarette Use (Million)
202310.0%1.56
202214.1%2.14
202111.3%1.72
202019.6%3.02
201927.5%4.11
  • FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) Director Brian King described the “substantial decline in e-cigarette use among high schoolers” as a “win for public health,” with a call to “continue to build on this progress.”
  • The continued decline in underage use of e-cigarettes may demonstrate that appropriate youth access restrictions and adult-focused marketing efforts are having a meaningful impact. If these trends continue, the U.S. marketplace may continue to see significant reductions in underage use balanced with continued access to adult smokers in a reasonably regulated marketplace. These data also call into question whether e-cigarettes really do serve as “gateway” products that lead to regular use of other, more dangerous combustible products such as cigarettes, a point that is often raised during public health debates surrounding electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). 
  • While acknowledging the progress made possible, in part, by appropriate public awareness and youth access restriction measures, the Agency has also announced that it is stepping up enforcement efforts against illegal, flavored disposable products that now appear to primarily contribute to youth ENDS use. FDA’s new wave of enforcement actions include civil money penalties (CMPs) against dozens of retailers for sale of illegal e-cigarettes with youth-appeal.

We will discuss the potential impact of these data and enforcement trends and more at Keller and Heckman’s 2024 Annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium. Be sure to save the date: January 29-30, 2024, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Details and registration information can be found here.

We’re back! Keller and Heckman’s E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium is returning in 2024 for our 8th annual conference. The symposium will be held Monday, January 29 – Tuesday, January 30, 2024, in Las Vegas, NV (right before TPE). Register today to join us for a two-day comprehensive seminar focused on legal and regulatory issues critical to the ENDS, nicotine, tobacco, CBD/hemp, and cannabis industries.

This year’s program will feature new, timely topics specifically designed to help vapor and deemed tobacco product manufacturers stay in compliance with rapidly evolving laws and policies. Topics that will be discussed during the program include:

  • New legislation, regulation, and enforcement of nicotine products, including oral products and ENDS products 
  • The role of ENDS flavors in smoking cessation: evidence from longitudinal and cross-sectional studies
  • The importance of quantifying the risk to youth associated with your ENDS products
  • Challenging MDOs and NSEs – Can you still appeal your denial?
  • FDA Litigation Update: Where does the industry stand?
  • FDA’s new Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practices (TPMP) Rule
  • Upcoming Federal ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars 
  • FDA’s new guidance and proposed rulemakings
  • Enforcement Update: How to protect your company and brand
  • Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) and Substantial Equivalence (SE) Report strategies for small businesses
  • Marketing plans, post-market surveillance, and youth-access prevention strategies
  • FDA Remote Regulatory Assessments and Inspections 
  • Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act – Key Updates
  • New state laws (local flavor bans, licensing requirements, and state enforcement actions)
  • EU and Global Regulatory Update 
  • Updates on CBD/hemp, Delta-8, and cannabis regulation
  • Mapping the global cannabis product landscape: Implications for Quality and Regulation
  • …and much more!

The symposium agenda and additional program details will be announced in the next few weeks, so keep an eye on your inbox. In the meantime, we invite you to register now to secure your spot today!

SEMINAR DETAILS

Dates
Monday, January 29 – Tuesday, January 30, 2024

Registration Fees
Super Early-Bird Rate:
$999 if registered by Friday, November 10, 2023
Early-Bird Rate: $1,099 if registered by Friday, December 15, 2023
Standard Registration Rate: $1,199 if registered after December 15

Location
Embassy Suites by Hilton Convention Center Las Vegas
3600 Paradise Road
Las Vegas, NV 89169

Click here to book your hotel room. Keller and Heckman has negotiated a preferred room rate of $169 per night, plus tax, at the Embassy Suites by Hilton Convention Center Las Vegas. Please book your room by Friday, January 5, 2024, in order to take advantage of the negotiated room rate.

Group Discount
Register three or more people from the same company and receive 10% off the total registration fee. Contact maxwell@khlaw.com for instructions on how to receive the discount.

Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
CLE credit is available, pending individual state approval.

Certificate of Attendance
All seminar attendees will be eligible to receive a certificate of attendance upon completion of the course.

Cancellation Policy
Cancellations are accepted, and registration fees are refunded if notice is received by December 15, 2023. If notice is given after December 15, no refunds will be granted; however, substitutions are welcome.

On March 10, 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a long-awaited proposed rule on Requirements for Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practice (TPMP),[1] which sets forth proposed requirements for the manufacture, design, packing, and storage of tobacco products[2]. The proposed requirements are essentially “good manufacturing practices” for tobacco products and are intended to minimize and prevent additional risks associated with such products and apply to both domestic and foreign manufacturers of finished and bulk tobacco products.

A finished tobacco product is defined as a tobacco product, including any component or part, sealed in packaging, such as a pack of cigarettes, intended for consumers, while a bulk tobacco product is defined as a tobacco product that is not sealed in final packaging but is otherwise suitable for consumer use[3]. A tobacco product manufacturer is defined as any person(s), including a repacker or relabler, who manufactures, fabricates, assembles, processes, or labels a tobacco product, or imports a finished or bulk tobacco product for sale or distribution in the United States[4]. Of note, under the proposed rule, small tobacco product manufacturers, defined as a manufacturer that employs fewer than 350 employees[5], would not need to comply with the TPMP requirements until four (4) years after the effective date of the final rule. FDA notes that this is consistent with Section 906(e)(1)(B)(v) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA), and would provide small businesses with sufficient time to implement the proposed requirements[6]. Moreover, manufacturers would only be required to comply with requirements applicable to its finished and bulk tobacco product manufacturing operations. Thus, smaller tobacco product manufacturers (such as vape shops that engage in some but not all of the activities described in the proposed rule) would be able to tailor their procedures to suit their smaller operations while still complying with the TPMP requirements[7].

With respect to vape shops in particular, the proposed rule clarifies that such establishments that only sell ENDS products and components and parts would not be considered manufacturers and would not be subject to the requirements in the proposed TPMP rule unless they also engage in the manufacture, preproduction design validation, packing, and storage of finished or bulk tobacco products within the meaning of the rule[8]. While vape shop owners will certainly appreciate the compliance extension, it is not clear how many vape shop e-liquid manufacturers will survive the next four years, given the nearly insurmountable PMTA process and FDA’s continued enforcement focus on these small U.S. businesses with de minimis market share.

In addition, while the proposed rule clearly states that TPMPs will apply to foreign manufacturers to ensure that imported tobacco products comply with the TCA and applicable tobacco product standards, it is important to note that the rule does not require foreign manufacturing establishments, including China-based manufacturers largely responsible for producing counterfeit and otherwise illegal disposable ENDS, to register their establishments with or provide a product list to FDA. Section 905(b) of the TCA made this a requirement for domestic manufacturing establishments, but left it up to FDA to extend to foreign manufacturing establishments through the rulemaking process[9]. In other words, FDA is not using the proposed TPMP rule to execute its authority provided by Congress under Section 905(h) of the TCA to promulgate a regulation to extend the registration and product listing requirement to foreign establishments. This also means that foreign manufacturers will not be subject to regular, biennial inspections required for domestic establishments, although the agency has broad authority and ability to inspect foreign manufacturers pursuant to Sections 704 and 905 of the FD&C Act, and as part of the Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) review process under 21 C.F.R. § 1114.27.  

Summary of Proposed Rule

The proposed rule, which is expected to be codified at 21 C.F.R. Part 1120, establishes a framework of requirements that tobacco product manufacturers to follow, including:

  • Establishing tobacco product design and development controls to prevent or minimize certain risks;
  • Ensuring that finished and bulk tobacco products are manufactured in conformance with established specifications;
  • Minimizing the likelihood of the manufacture and distribution of nonconforming tobacco products;
  • Requiring investigation and identification of nonconforming tobacco products, including those that have been distributed, in order to institute appropriate corrective actions, such as conducting a recall as needed;
  • Taking appropriate measures to prevent contamination of tobacco products; and
  • Establishing traceability to account for all components or parts, ingredients, additives, and materials, as well as each batch of finished or bulk tobacco product, to aid in the investigation and identification of nonconforming tobacco products. 

Specifically, the proposed rule is divided into ten subparts, as follows:

1) Subpart A – General Provisions

Subpart A describes the purpose and scope of the proposed rule. As noted above, the proposed rule applies to both domestic and foreign manufacturers of finished and bulk tobacco products, requiring such manufacturers to adhere to the framework of requirements. 

2) Subpart B – Management System Requirements

Subpart B has three sections, as follows:

  • Organization and personnel, which requires establishing and maintaining an organizational structure with sufficient personnel and designated responsibilities, including management personnel with executive responsibility;
  • Tobacco product complaints, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures for handling the receipt, evaluation, and documentation of any complaints; and
  • Corrective and preventive actions (CAPA) are necessary to protect public health, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures for implementing such actions. 

3) Subpart C – Buildings, Facilities, and Equipment

Subpart C has four sections, as follows:

  • Personnel practices, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures related to personnel practices to reduce the risk of contamination with filth biological materials, chemical hazards, or other deleterious substances;
  • Buildings, facilities, and grounds, which requires ensuring that buildings and facilities are of suitable construction, design, and location to facilitate cleaning and sanitation, maintenance, and proper operation, as well as ensuring that grounds are maintained in a condition to prevent contamination;
  • Equipment, which provides requirements for the design, construction, and maintenance of equipment used in the manufacturing process, as well as requirements for testing, monitoring, and measuring such equipment; and
  • Environmental controls, which requires that systems be maintained and monitored to verify that environmental controls are adequate and functional. 

4) Subpart D – Design and Development Controls

Subpart D has two sections, as follows:

  • Design and development activities, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures to control the design and development of tobacco products, including the control of risks associated with the product, the manufacturing process, packaging, and storage, as well as procedures for design verification and validation, and requires developing a process for identifying, analyzing, and evaluating known and reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the tobacco product and its packaging and taking appropriate measures to reduce or eliminate risks; and
  • Master manufacturing record (MMR), which requires establishing and maintaining an MMR for each finished and bulk tobacco product manufactured for distribution, including tobacco product specifications, manufacturing methods and production process procedures, and all packaging, labeling, and labels approved for use with the product. 

5) Subpart E – Process Controls

Subpart E contains nine sections, as follows:

  • Purchasing controls, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures for ensuring that purchased or otherwise received products and services related to the manufacture of finished or bulk tobacco products are from qualified suppliers and conform to established specifications;
  • Acceptance activities, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures for incoming, in-process, and/or final acceptance activities, including acceptance criteria, to ensure that products meet established specifications;
  • Production processes and controls, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures for production processes, including process specifications and process controls, process validation, and manual methods and manufacturing material;
  • Laboratory controls, which requires demonstrating laboratory competency to perform laboratory activities associated with the manufacture of finished and bulk tobacco products and establishing and maintaining appropriate laboratory control procedures;
  • Production records, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures for ensuring that a production record is prepared for each batch of finished or bulk tobacco product to demonstrate conformity with the requirements established under the MMR;
  • Sampling, which requires establishing and maintaining an adequate sampling plan that uses representative samples based on a valid scientific rationale;
  • Nonconforming tobacco products, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures for the control and disposition of nonconforming tobacco products, including specific requirements for identification and segregation, investigation, and disposition and follow-up
  • Returned tobacco products, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures for the control and disposition of returned tobacco products, including specific requirements for identification, segregation, evaluation, and disposition; and
  • Reprocessing and rework, which provides specific requirements for the evaluation of the tobacco product to determine that it is appropriate for reprocessing or rework, authorization of the reprocessing or rework, and production processes, including process controls, to ensure that reprocessed and reworked tobacco product conforms to MMR specifications. 

6) Subpart F – Packaging and Labeling Controls

Subpart F contains four sections, as follows:

  • Packaging and labeling controls, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures for ensuring that the correct packaging and labeling are used to prevent mix-ups, ensuring that all packaging and labeling are approved for use by the manufacturer and comply with all requirements of the MMR as well as other applicable requirements promulgated by FDA, ensuring that packaging and labeling control procedures to ensure that labels are indelibly printed on or permanently affixed to finished and bulk tobacco product packages, and ensuring that the packaging, labeling, storage, and shipping cases do not contaminate or otherwise render the tobacco product adulterated or misbranded;
  • Repackaging and relabeling, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures for repackaging and relabeling operations;
  • Manufacturing code, which requires applying a manufacturing code that contains the manufacturing date and batch number to the packaging or label of all finished and bulk tobacco products; and
  • Warning plans, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures for implementing the requirements of such plans. 

7) Subpart G – Handling, Storage, and Distribution

Subpart G contains two sections, as follows:

  • Handling and storage, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures to ensure that tobacco products are handled and stored under appropriate conditions to prevent nonconforming products as well as mix-ups, deterioration, contamination, adulteration, and misbranding of tobacco products; and
  • Distribution, which requires establishing and maintaining procedures to ensure that tobacco products are distributed to the initial consignee under appropriate conditions and that only those finished and bulk tobacco products approved for release are distributed. 

8) Subpart H – Recordkeeping and Document Controls

Subpart H requires that all documents and records be maintained at the manufacturing establishment or another location that is readily accessible to responsible individuals of the manufacturer and to FDA and that they be written in English, or an English translation be made available upon request. Additionally, documents and records associated with a batch of finished or bulk tobacco product must be retained for a period of at least four years from the date of distribution of the batch or until the product reaches its expiration date, if one exists, whichever is later, while documents and records that are not associated with a batch of finished or bulk tobacco product must be retained for a period of at least four years from the date they were last in effect. 

9) Subpart I – Small Tobacco Product Manufacturers

Subpart I provides that small tobacco product manufacturers, defined as tobacco product manufacturers that employ fewer than 350 employees, are not required to comply with the proposed rule until four years after the effective date of the Final Rule. 

10) Subpart J – Exemptions and Variances

Finally, Subpart J contains five sections that set forth procedures and requirements for petitioning for a permanent or temporary exemption or variance from any of the proposed requirements. 

Next Steps

The proposed rule is open to public comments for 180 days, until 11:59 PM (Eastern) on September 6, 2023. As part of the rulemaking process, FDA will review all comments received, conduct a comment analysis, and decide whether to (i) proceed with the proposed rule; (ii) issue a modified proposed rule based on the comments received; or (iii) withdraw the proposed rule. Depending on how many comments are received, we anticipate it will take FDA at least two years to finalize the TPMP rule.

FDA will host a public hearing on April 12, 2023, to gather comments from stakeholders, including industry, the scientific community, advocacy groups, and the public. FDA will also hold a meeting of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) on May 18, 2023, to seek recommendations from FDA’s outside panel of experts on the requirements laid out in the proposed rule. As part of the TPSAC meeting, the public will have an opportunity to make oral presentations.


[1] 88 Fed. Reg. 15174 (March 10, 2023), available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/10/2023-04591/requirements-for-tobacco-product-manufacturing-practice

[2] See United States Food and Drug Administration, “FDA Proposes New Requirements for Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practices” (March 8, 2023), available at: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-proposes-new-requirements-tobacco-product-manufacturing-practices

[3] 88 Fed. Reg. 15174, 15253 (March 10, 2023). 

[4] Id. at 15174, 15254. 

[5] The proposed rule indicates that, for purposes of this definition, the number of employees of a manufacturer includes those employees and personnel of each entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with such manufacturer. Id. 

[6] Id. at 15174, 15237. 

[7] Id. at 15174, 15186. 

[8] Id.

[9] See United States Food and Drug Administration, “Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments: Guidance for Industry” (December 2017), available at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/registration-and-product-listing-owners-and-operators-domestic-tobacco-product-establishments

To be placed on the European Union market, tobacco and related products must comply with specific requirements and procedures, harmonized at the European level by Directive 2014/40/EU concerning the manufacture, presentation, and sale of tobacco and related products (hereinafter the “Tobacco Products Directive” or the “Directive”). This article provides a general overview of the requirements and procedures necessary to comply with the Tobacco Products Directive. This is the first of a series of articles that we will publish on marketing tobacco and related products in the EU. Future articles will address specific insights on (i) ingredients requirements and flavor bans, (ii) notification and reporting obligations under the Directive, (iii) labeling and packaging of tobacco products, and (iv) implementation of the Directive by the European Member States.

I. Scope of the Directive: Heated Tobacco Products Now Included

The Directive applies to electronic cigarettes, herbal products for smoking, and tobacco products. Under the Directive, “tobacco products” include pipe tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco, cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, waterpipe tobacco, and novel tobacco products. ‘Novel tobacco products’ is a new and open category introduced by the Directive, which encompasses all tobacco products not falling under the one previously mentioned and that are placed on the market after May 19, 2014. Following the Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2022/2100, which became effective on November 23, 2022, novel tobacco products include ‘Heated Tobacco Products,’ which are defined as a product  “that is heated to produce an emission containing nicotine and other chemicals, which is then inhaled by user(s), and that, depending on its characteristics, is a smokeless tobacco product or a tobacco product for smoking.”

II. Notification and Reporting Obligations

Under the Tobacco Products Directive, prior to placing a product on the market, manufacturers and importers of tobacco products and e-cigarettes must submit to the Member State authorities specific information containing details on (i) ingredients, accompanied by relevant toxicological data, (ii) emissions resulting from the use of the products, (iii) studies and market research on smokers, ingredients and emissions, and (iv) on a yearly basis, information on the sales volumes of the products. Enhanced reporting obligations apply to cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco products only if they contain additives on a priority list[1]. For electronic cigarettes, additional information includes components of the product, a description of the production process, and the nicotine doses and the nicotine uptake (i.e., the body absorption). The above information must be submitted through an electronic entry gate, common for all Member States of the European Union (also known as “the EU Common Entry Gate”).

III. Product Requirements

Emission levels and ingredients

The Tobacco Products Directive sets forth requirements on maximum emission levels, measurement methods, and standards (the latter for cigarettes only) and prohibits the use of ingredients that (i) are listed in the Directive,[2] (ii) have carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic (CMR) properties, or (iii) pose a risk to human health (for tobacco products and electronic cigarettes). The use of flavorings is banned in cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. Importantly, the flavor ban will apply (as of October 23, 2023) to heated tobacco products as well, pursuant to recent Directive (EU) 2022/2100. Further to the above, the Directive also provides specific product requirements for electronic cigarettes, such as maximum nicotine levels (20 mg/mL), volume requirements for refill containers and cartridges, and mechanical requirements for electronic cigarettes and refill containers.

Labeling and packaging

The Directive also regulates certain aspects of the labeling, packaging, and presentation of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, and herbal products for smoking. For each of these product categories, the mandatory health warnings required to be placed on the product packaging are provided in the Directive.

Traceability requirements

For tobacco products only, the Directive sets out a traceability system in order to address the issue of illicit trade[3]. Under the traceability system, (i) all unit packets of tobacco products must be marked with a unique identifier and a tamper-proof security feature enabling authorities and consumers to verify their authenticity, and (ii) economic operators in the supply chain must maintain records of the traceability of the products and transmit the related information to an independent provider of a repository, approved by the EU Commission, that stores therein the data transmitted. The competent authorities of the Member States and the Commission have access to the data stored in the repositories to ensure compliance with the tobacco products legislation.

Cross-border distance sales of tobacco products

Specific requirements (i.e., registration and verification obligations) apply to cross-border distance sales of tobacco products and electronic cigarettes. Cross-border distance sales may also be prohibited by Member States[4]. 

IV. Implementation of the Directive by the EU Member States

In general, EU Directives only set forth the objectives that all EU countries must achieve. However, it is up to the individual Member States to devise their own laws on how to achieve the objectives within the Directive. It follows that (i) Directives need to be implemented in each EU Member State to be enforceable and that (ii) the Directives may be, in practice, implemented differently in each Member State[5]. In this regard, we note that pursuant to the Tobacco Products Directive:

  • Member States may maintain or introduce further requirements in relation to the standardization of the packaging of tobacco products when justified on the grounds of public health;
  • Member States may also prohibit a certain category of tobacco or related products, provided again, the provisions are justified by the need to protect public health

V. Revision of the Tobacco Products Directive

The European Commission is currently reviewing the Tobacco Products Directive, aiming to address issues such as further enforcement of the current regime for cross-border distance sales, emerging novel tobacco products, regulatory challenges posed by heated tobacco products and electronic cigarettes, new herbal products entering the market, and options to increase tobacco manufacturers’ liability[6].  According to the European Commission’s Implementation Roadmap[7] of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, the Commission is expected to adopt a proposal for the revision of the Tobacco Products Directive in 2024.

VI. Conclusion

In summary, the Tobacco Products Directive establishes numerous and detailed provisions that manufacturers must take into consideration when placing electronic cigarettes and tobacco products on the European Union market. Given the numerous requirements, differences in Member State implementation of the Directive, upcoming flavor bans, and anticipated revisions to the Directive, companies must take a careful approach and monitor developments closely to ensure compliance and avoid enforcement.  

We will be covering EU regulation of tobacco products in detail at Keller and Heckman’s Annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium on February 15 – 16, 2023, in Irvine, California. Details and registration information can be found here.


[1] Decision (EU) 2016/787 laying down a priority list of additives contained in cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco subject to enhanced reporting obligations. This is a list containing the most commonly used additives, for which there are indications that they:  a) contribute to/increase the toxicity or addictiveness of the products, or b) result in a characterizing flavor, or c) facilitate inhalation or nicotine uptake, or d) leads to the formation/increase of CMR substances/their quantities.

[2] The list is provided by Article 7.6 of the Tobacco Products Directive.

[3] See Par. 5 (Traceability and security features) of the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application of Directive 2014/40/EU concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products of May 20, 2021 (the “2021 Commission Report”).

[4] According to the 2021 Commission Report, more than half of the Member States banned cross-border distance sales of tobacco and/or related products to consumers in their countries (Par. 6 Cross-border distance sales).

[5] We note that aspects not harmonized by the Directive may be regulated autonomously by the Member States. For example, the Directive (recital 47) mentions that it does not harmonize all aspects of electronic cigarettes or refill containers and that the responsibility for adopting rules on flavors remains with the Member States.

[6] See the 2021 Commission Report.

[7] Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan: Implementation Roadmap was published in November 2021 and is available here: https://health.ec.europa.eu/latest-updates/europes-beating-cancer-plan-implementation-roadmap-2021-11-17_en.

The extended early-bird discount for Keller and Heckman’s annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium expires tomorrow, Friday, February 3. Register now in order to save $100 on your registration!

In addition to legal experts from Keller and Heckman, this year’s program will feature an impressive lineup of industry experts.

Meet this year’s guest speakers:


Derek Yach
Global Health Advocate, Former WHO Lead for Develpment of the FCTC and Former President of the Foundation
for a Smoke-Free World

Willie J. McKinney, Ph.D., DABT
McKinney Regulatory Science Advisors, LLC

Jessica Zdinak, Ph.D.
CEO, Applied Research and Analysis, LLC

Eric Hawk
Illicit Trade Independent Consultant

Dave DeJean
Head of Sales and Business Development, Systech International

Ian Fearon, Ph.D.
Director, whatIF? Consulting Ltd

Christopher Russell, Ph.D.
Russell Burnett Research & Consultancy Ltd

Gregory Conley
Director of Legislative & External Affairs, American Vapor Manufacturers

This year’s program will feature timely topics specifically designed to help vapor, deemed tobacco product and cannabis-derived manufacturers stay in compliance with rapidly evolving laws and policies. Topics that will be discussed include:

• Complying with the California Prop 31 (SB 793) Flavor Ban
• Challenging MDOs, RTAs, and NSEs – Can You Still Appeal Your Denial?
• Litigation Update – Status of Appeals, Flavor Bans and New Challenges
• FDA’s New Guidance and Proposed Rulemakings
• Preparing for Increased Enforcement, and Defending Your Business
• Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) and Substantial Equivalence (SE) Report Strategies for Small Businesses
• Scientific Arguments for Flavors and Flavor Choices
• Flavor Variety Longitudinal Study: Call to Action
• Marketing Plans, Post-Market Surveillance, and Youth-Access Prevention Strategies
• Age-Gating and Supply Chain Security
• Insurance and Product Liability Considerations
• FDA Remote Regulatory Assessments and Inspections
• New State Laws (California and Other Local Flavor Bans, Licensing and Excise Requirements, and State Enforcement Actions)
• European Union (TPD, CLP and REACH) and China STMA Update
• Regulatory Update on CBD, Delta-8, and Cannabis/Hemp-Derived Products
• …and Much More!

Seminar Details
Dates
Wednesday, February 15 – Thursday, February 16, 2023

Registration Fees
Early-Bird Rate: $999, if registered by Friday, February 3, 2023
Standard Registration Rate
: $1,099, if registered after February 3, 2023

Location
Courtyard Marriott Irvine Spectrum
7955 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, CA 92618

Group Discount
Register three or more people from the same company and receive 10% off the total registration fee. Contact maxwell@khlaw.com for instructions on how to receive the discount.

Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
CLE credit is available, pending individual state approval.

Certificate of Attendance
All seminar attendees will be eligible to receive a certificate of attendance upon completion of the course.

Cancellation Policy
The cancellation deadline has passed, and cancellations will no longer be refunded; however, substitutions are welcome.

For questions concerning the 2023 E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium, please contact:

Abby Maxwell-Morrisroe
Marketing and Events Specialist
maxwell@khlaw.com
202.434.4223


Yesterday, Janet Woodcock, M.D., the Principle Deputy Commissioner for the Office of the FDA Commissioner, released a statement regarding the Agency’s approach towards cannabidiol (CBD) and its application in the food and drug industry.

The statement provided that FDA convened a high-level internal working group to explore potential regulatory pathways for CBD products.  The working group examined studies related to the CBD-based drug Epidiolex, as well as published scientific literature and information submitted to a public docket. Following review, the working group concluded that a new regulatory pathway for CBD is needed that balances individuals’ desire for access to CBD products with the regulatory oversight needed to manage potential long-term risks from frequent exposure. FDA is expecting to collaborate with Congress on this matter; however, the timeline for action remains unknown.

Woodcock, on behalf of FDA, stated: “[s]ome risk management tools could include clear labels, prevention of contaminants, CBD content limits, and measures, such as minimum purchase age, to mitigate the risk of ingestion by children. In addition, a new pathway could provide access and oversight for certain CBD-containing products for animals.”

FDA also denied three citizen petitions that had asked the agency to conduct rulemaking to allow the marketing of CBD products as dietary supplements.

Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on matters impacting the CBD industry.

We will be covering this topic in detail at Keller and Heckman’s Annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium on February 15 – 16, 2023, in Irvine, California. Details and registration information can be found here. To learn more about Keller and Heckman’s Cannabis, Hemp, and Cannabinoids (CBD) practice, see here.

Reposted from Keller and Heckman’s Blog, The Daily Intake

  • On November 21, 2022, FDA posted warning letters that had been issued to 11-11-11 Brands, Naturally Infused LLC, Newhere Inc dba CBDFX, Infusionz LLC, and CBD American Shaman, LLC for illegally selling CBD-containing products. Collectively, the warning letters raised several legal objections to the sale of CBD in human and animal food and drugs, and dietary supplements, including the following:
    • The sale of a CBD-containing food or animal food renders that food or animal food adulterated because CBD has not been authorized for use by a food additive regulation, subject to a prior sanction, and does not satisfy the criteria for GRAS. On the contrary, FDA noted that the “available data raises serious concerns about potential harm from CBD added to conventional food,” including potential for livery injury, harmful interaction with certain drugs, and interference with sexual development, function, and behavior.
    • The sale of CBD in a human or animal product intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease and/or intended to affect the structure or function of the body, and that has not been approved by FDA, is an unlawful introduction into interstate commerce of an unapproved new human drug or animal drug. The only CBD-containing drug approved by FDA is Epidiolex, which is approved to treat severe epilepsy.
    • It is unlawful to market any CBD-containing product as a conventional food or dietary supplement because CBD has been approved for use as a drug.
    • When a drug is used to treat a condition which is not amenable to self-diagnosis or treatment (e.g., sleep apnea), as was the case with many of the products at issue, that drug is misbranded if it does not include adequate directions for use. FDA-approved prescription drugs are exempt from this requirement, but none of the products at issue have been approved by FDA.
  • FDA was particularly concerned with some of the products at issue that appeal to children (e.g., candies, cookies, and gummies) as children may be at greater risk to adverse effects from consumption of CBD. Additionally, in the Naturally Infused LLC Warning Letter, FDA objected to the presence of Delta-8 THC, noting that its use in food renders that food adulterated because it is not authorized by a food additive regulation, the subject of a prior sanction, or GRAS. Indeed, FDA noted that the available data raises “serious concerns” about its use, including “potential for adverse effects on the central nervous and cardiopulmonary systems” and gestational neurodevelopment interference.
  • FDA has already issued a number of warning letters to companies using CBD in various products this year (see here and here) and the safety concerns raised by the Agency suggest that it will be a continuing enforcement priority. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on regulatory developments related to CBD.

Be sure to register for Keller and Heckman’s Annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium on February 15 – 16, 2023, in Irvine, California. Details and registration information can be found here.

On November 8, 2022, California voters approved[1] the Referendum on 2020 Law That Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products (Proposition 31). The referendum, submitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of Article II of the California Constitution, asked California citizens to vote on whether to uphold a 2020 law (Senate Bill No. 793)[2] that banned the sale of most non-tobacco flavored tobacco products at tobacco retailers and in vending machines.

Senate Bill No. 793

In 2020, the California legislature passed, and Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 793 (S.B. 793), which added sections to the State’s Health and Safety Code that would prohibit tobacco retailers—specifically brick-and-mortar stores and vending machine operators—from “selling, offering for sale, or possessing with the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product or a tobacco product flavor enhancer (emphasis added).” A tobacco retailer is a person who engages in this state in the sale of tobacco products directly to the public from a retail location.

The statute defined flavored tobacco product as meaning “any tobacco product that contains a constituent that imparts a characterizing flavor” and tobacco product flavor enhancer as meaning a “product designed, manufactured, produced, marketed, or sold to produce a characterizing flavor when added to a tobacco product.”[3] Both terms encompass a broad swath of products, including, but not limited to, e-cigarettes, vape pods, and chewing tobacco[4].

According to the statute, flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers cannot have a “characterizing flavor.” A “characterizing flavor” is defined as a “distinguishable taste or aroma, or both, other than the taste or aroma of tobacco, imparted by a tobacco product or any byproduct produced by the tobacco product.” The definition continues by listing examples of characterizing flavors, including “tastes or aromas relating to any fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa, dessert, alcoholic beverage, menthol, mint, wintergreen, herb, or spice.”[5]

This law does not apply to hookah lounges that sell non-tobacco flavored hookah (i.e., shisha or waterpipe) tobacco to be used inside the venue[6]. It also excludes certain cigars and loose-leaf tobacco from the ban[7]. Lastly, while this measure does not address online sales of non-tobacco flavored products, legally selling tobacco products online to California is very difficult, as a practical matter, and requires compliance with the PACT Act and shipping restrictions by common carriers, as well as the California STAKE Act.

Similar Flavor Bans                                                                                                      

California is not the first governmental entity to adopt a ban on non-tobacco flavored tobacco products. Dozens of cities, counties, and states like Massachusetts have passed bans on non-tobacco flavored tobacco products. Cigarettes with specific characterizing flavors—other than menthol and tobacco—were banned in 2009 when the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) was enacted (see section 907). Moreover, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in April 2022, proposed a ban on menthol-flavored cigarettes and all non-tobacco flavored cigars[8].

Challenge to the Los Angeles County Ban

In September 2019, Los Angeles County enacted its own ban on the sale of all non-tobacco flavored tobacco products, including cigarettes, little cigars, smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes, hookah, synthetic nicotine products, flavored liquids and wraps designed to add flavors to tobacco products[9]. Industry quickly brought a challenge to this ban. Over the last two years, tobacco product manufacturers R.J. Reynolds, the American Snuff Company, and the Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company have challenged the ban in federal court.

The manufacturers broadly argue that Congress granted FDA sole authority to regulate “tobacco product standards” when it passed the TCA. And while the TCA does preserve some authority to states and other political subdivisions under section 916, these bans on non-tobacco flavored tobacco products equate to unlawful product standards.[10] Therefore, state and local bans on flavored tobacco products are preempted under federal law. Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a district court’s decision that federal law does not preempt Los Angeles County’s ban on all flavored tobacco products[11]. Following this, R.J. Reynolds and its co-plaintiffs have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision[12].

Keller and Heckman Files Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of R.J Reynolds Cert Petition on Behalf of E-Cigarette Businesses and Trade Associations selling Non-Tobacco Flavored Products to Adults

On November 14, Keller and Heckman, on behalf of several e-cigarette businesses and trade associations, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court expressing support for the petitioners’ cert request[13]. The individual business amici are Bidi Vapor; Fresh Farms E-Liquid; SV3 d/b/a Mi-Pod Distributors; Charlie’s Chalkdust; Flavor West Manufacturing; American Vape Company; NicQuid; and Flavors15 d/b/a Flavors United. The trade association amici are American Vapor Manufacturers (“AVM”) and the Ohio Vapor Trade Association (“OHVTA”).

The amicus brief argues that numerous studies have shown that e-cigarettes pose substantially less health risk than combustible cigarettes, while also promoting harm reduction by providing adult smokers a known and effective quit aid to combustible cigarettes. Particularly important for adult smokers are non-tobacco flavored e-cigarettes, the primary target of many state and local bans. The brief also elaborates on the scope of authority that states and political subdivisions retained under section 916 of the TCA and argues that such state and local bans are explicitly preempted under the TCA because such wide-ranging bans, in effect, establish requirements related to “premarket review,” something states and localities are expressly prohibited from doing[14]. In general, the brief argues that “e-cigarette bans, such as the non-tobacco flavor ban adopted by the County of Los Angeles, may be counterproductive and that a more balanced approach is needed to effectively address tobacco use and promote cessation in the U.S.”[15]

The Supreme Court is now considering the Reynolds petition and is likely to render a decision on whether it will accept and hear the case by early 2023.

R.J. Reynold’s Challenge to California’s Proposition 31

Separate from the legal challenge to the Los Angeles County ban on flavored tobacco products, R.J. Reynolds and others promptly filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop Proposition 31 from taking effect[16]. Absent an injunction, the ban will take effect five days after the Secretary of State certifies the results, which will occur by December 16, 2022. A group of plaintiffs that includes Reynolds promptly filed a preemption challenge to California’s new statewide ban on flavored tobacco products. The California case includes the same preemption issues as the Los Angeles County case. The Proposition 31 challenge moved quickly through the district court and the emergency request is now docketed in the Ninth Circuit.

Similar to arguments presented in the Ninth Circuit challenging the Los Angeles County ban, the plaintiffs argue that the California law is preempted under federal law because the TCA prohibits state and local governments from enacting “tobacco product standards.” The plaintiffs also maintain that the state-wide ban is prohibited under the Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause because it specifically regulates manufacturing activities outside of California.

Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments in both cases.

Be sure to register for Keller and Heckman’s Annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium on February 15 – 16, 2023, in Irvine, California. Details and registration information can be found here.

[1] The Associated Press called the voting at 11:49 pm on Nov. 8, 2022. See Election Results 2022 California AP Projects: Californians Pass Prop 31, Upholding Ban on Certain Flavored Tobacco, https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/prop-31-californians-projected-to-uphold-ban-on-certain-flavored-tobacco/ (updated on Nov. 9, 2022).

[2] S.B. 793, 2019-2020 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2020).

[3] Cal. Health and Safety Code § 104559.5(a)(4), (15).

[4] S.B. 793 cross-references the definition of “tobacco product” with the definition found in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 104495 of the California Health and Safety Code.

[5] Cal. Health and Safety Code § 104559.5(a)(1).

[6] Cal. Health and Safety Code § 104559.5(c).

[7] Cal. Health and Safety Code § 104559.5(d)-(e).

[8]  87 Fed. Reg. 26,454 (May 4, 2022); 87 Fed. Reg. 26,396 (May 4, 2022).

[9] L.A. Cnty. Code §§ 11.35.020, 70.

[10] 21 U.S.C. §387p (2022).

[11] R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. County of Los Angeles, 29 F.4th 542 (9th Cir.), available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-55930/20-55930-2022-03-18.pdf?ts=1647623028.

[12] Petition for Writ of Certiorari, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. County of Los Angeles, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-338/242733/20221007155331079_RJR%20v.%20County%20of%20LA%20-%20Cert%20Petition.pdf.

[13] Brief of Amici Curiae E-Cigarette Businesses and Trade Associations In Support Of Petitioners, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. County of Los Angeles, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-338/246382/20221114140200736_22-338acE-CigaretteBusinessesAndTradeAssociations.pdf.

[14] 21 U.S.C. §387p(a)(2)(A)

[15] Brief of Amici Curiae E-Cigarette Businesses and Trade Associations In Support Of Petitioners, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. County of Los Angeles, at 5.

[16] R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al v. Bonta et al., Docket No. 3:22-cv-01755 (S.D. Cal. Nov 09, 2022), Court Docket available at https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/RJReynoldsTobaccoCompanyetalvBontaetalDocketNo322cv01755SDCalNov0/1.