Several cigarette and e-cigarette companies under the Renault Tobacco umbrella have partnered with retailers in the San Diego area and an e-cigarette shop to challenge California's Proposition 31 in federal court. The lawsuit was filed on Wednesday, the day after the proposition passed by a wide margin in a California voter referendum. The proposition prohibits the sale of most flavored e-cigarettes and tobacco products in retail stores.
The plaintiff is requesting that the court invalidate the law approved by voters on Tuesday, claiming that it violates commercial terms and permanently prohibits the state from enforcing the flavor ban. They are also seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the state from implementing the flavor ban until the bill is fully repealed.
California E-Cigarette Shops Join Tobacco Industry Lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District Court of California in the United States. The plaintiffs include RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, RJ Reynolds Vapor Company, American Snuff Company LLC, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc., Modoral Brands Inc., Neighborhood Market Association Inc., and Morija LLC (Vapin' the 619). All of the plaintiffs, except for the last two, are subsidiaries of the Reynolds American Inc., which is owned by British American Tobacco.
The same plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in 2020, challenging the flavor ban passed by the California legislature. However, after the ban was postponed, the court dismissed the legal action. A signature collection campaign successfully led to a statewide vote on the law, known as Proposition 31, requiring voters to approve the flavor ban passed by the legislature in 2020.
Renowned Tobacco company, Reynolds Tobacco, has announced that the flavor ban in California has been given priority under federal law.
Renault Tobacco and other plaintiffs argue that California law has priority over federal law, specifically the 2009 Tobacco Control Act (TCA), which prohibits state and local governments from setting tobacco product standards (although they are allowed to regulate sales). The plaintiffs argue that the flavor ban is a type of product standard.
The plaintiff argued that California's ban is unconstitutional because federal law takes precedence, as it goes beyond the flavor restrictions approved by Congress in the Tobacco Control Act. Congress bestowed the FDA with exclusive authority to issue standards for tobacco products.
In fact, voter-approved Proposition 31 in California bans the sale of all flavored vapor and heated tobacco products, including those specifically authorized by the FDA as "appropriate for the protection of public health," and even products that have received modified risk designations from federal regulators, such as the mentholated IQOS device and flavored snuff.
Renovo Tobacco also stated that the flavor ban in California attempts to regulate out-of-state manufacturers, which violates dormant commerce clause.
Reynolds had previously questioned a similar taste ban passed by the city of Los Angeles and lost in court, and has again appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision has been appealed to the United States Supreme Court and it is still unknown whether they will win.
Reynolds and other plaintiffs acknowledged in Wednesday's lawsuit that the district court is currently bound by the Ninth Circuit's decision in the Los Angeles case. However, they believe that this is an incorrect decision (citing a dissenting opinion) and claim that even under the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the priority provision of the Tobacco Control Act, California's flavor ban is consistent with requirements related to "tobacco product standards" because it specifies the manufacturing process.
The President of the American Vapor Manufacturers Association (AVM), Amanda Wheeler, informed Vaping360 that the Washington D.C. law firm Keller Heckman is preparing a "friend-of-the-court" brief to represent AVM and several California e-cigarette retailers in support of these two lawsuits.
Critics of the lawsuit claim that Reynolds American, the producer of America's top-selling menthol cigarette brand Newport, knew it could not win the legal battle but still stubbornly delayed the ban to sell as much menthol cigarettes as possible before the law came into effect.
Statement:
This article is based on compiled third-party information and is intended solely for industry exchange and learning purposes.
This article does not represent the views of 2FIRSTS and 2FIRSTS cannot confirm the truthfulness or accuracy of the content. The translation of this article is solely for industry communication and research purposes.
Due to limitations in the level of translation, the compiled article may not fully express the same meaning as the original. Please refer to the original text for accuracy.
2FIRSTS maintains complete alignment with the Chinese government on any domestic, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan-related, as well as foreign-related, statements and positions.
Information compiled here belongs to the original media and authors. If there is any infringement, please contact us for removal.
Disclaimer
This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.
Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.
The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.
This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.
Copyright Notice
This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.
No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.
For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.
AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice
Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.
Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.
