US Judge Rules Against FDA on Premium Cigar Regulation

Jul.07.2022
US Judge Rules Against FDA on Premium Cigar Regulation
A US judge ruled FDA's decision on regulating premium cigars as arbitrary and capricious, asks for briefing on decision reversal.

On Tuesday, a federal judge in the U.S. ruled that the FDA's decision to regulate premium cigars under the same federal laws as cigarettes and other tobacco products was arbitrary and capricious.


District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington D.C. has stated that the FDA disregarded relevant data on the health risks associated with high-quality cigars. He has requested the FDA and industry groups that question this regulation, including the Premium Cigar Association and the Cigar Rights of America, to submit briefs explaining why he should overturn the FDA's decision.


Michael Edney, the attorney for the plaintiff firm Steptoe & Johnson, stated that the family-owned manufacturer and retailer of high-quality cigars has long believed that the FDA has mishandled its regulation of premium cigars. He expressed gratitude for the court's ruling and the opportunity to pursue further legal action on this matter.


At this time, it is not possible to immediately reach out to the FDA for comment on this matter.


The focus of the lawsuit is the so-called certification rules passed by the agency in 2016, in which it exercised regulatory authority over a wide range of tobacco products, including premium cigars and cigarettes, under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.


The plaintiff stated that the organization considered and rejected high-quality cigars before finalizing its regulations, as well as during additional consultations in 2017 and 2018.


According to them, the FDA's regulations require cigar manufacturers to register their products annually and provide a list of ingredients for each product. They also require all products to undergo laboratory testing, which is impractical for "craftsmen" who produce high-quality handmade cigars.


Industry organizations state that unlike cigarettes and e-cigarettes, high-quality cigars are not appealing to young people and are not associated with addiction. They cite research indicating that young people are unlikely to use high-quality cigars, and those who do use them are unlikely to smoke cigars on a regular basis, thus not contributing to increased death rates.


On Monday, Mehta agreed that the FDA did not adequately consider the studies cited by the plaintiffs and instead claimed "there is no evidence to suggest" that high-quality cigars pose less of a health risk.


The judge wrote that when an institution unequivocally claims there is no evidence, while in fact there are relevant documented pieces of evidence, and the institution ignores or disregards it, it acts arbitrarily and capriciously.


The case is the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Cigar Association against the FDA in the District Court of Columbia, case number 16-cv-01460.


This article is a compilation of information from third-party sources and is intended solely for educational and informational purposes. All copyrights to the compiled information belong to the original media and authors, and any infringements should be reported for prompt 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.

Retail Case Study | Wisconsin Vape Market One Year After New Regulations: Johnny Vapes Reports 80% Sales Decline as Consumers Shift Online and Across State Lines
Retail Case Study | Wisconsin Vape Market One Year After New Regulations: Johnny Vapes Reports 80% Sales Decline as Consumers Shift Online and Across State Lines
According to WNCY on August 24, 2026, some independent vape retailers in Wisconsin say they have faced significant business pressure one year after new vape regulations took effect. Johnny Vapes, a retailer operating in northeast Wisconsin, said its store count fell from seven locations to four, sales declined by about 80%, and roughly 90% of its inventory was affected. Retailers said some consumers have shifted to online purchases or traveled to neighboring Michigan to buy vape products. The case highlights how local regulations can reshape retail operations, inventory management and consumer purchasing patterns.
Aug.28
IKE Tech Launches IKE 2.0 Compliance Platform for Nicotine Products
IKE Tech Launches IKE 2.0 Compliance Platform for Nicotine Products
IKE Tech launched IKE 2.0 on September 28, initially targeting nicotine products with a platform that combines user identity verification, product authentication, configurable policy controls and data analytics. Products can be authenticated through direct device integration or NFC smart tags. IKE Tech was formed with participation from Ispire's Aspire North America, Berify and Chemular, with Ispire currently holding a 40% interest. Its age-verification component PMTA was accepted by the FDA in 2025 and remains under review. The company did not disclose customer names, commercial deployment volumes, pricing or revenue tied to IKE 2.0.
News
Sep.29 by 2Firsts Perspectives
From Vuse, Velo and glo to AI Consulting: Former BAT Content Lead Launches Destreza
From Vuse, Velo and glo to AI Consulting: Former BAT Content Lead Launches Destreza
Former BAT global content lead Andy Parton has left the company and launched Destreza, a London-based AI-native marketing consultancy. Parton previously worked across BAT's New Category brands Vuse, Velo and glo and had also served as Global Brand Lead for Vuse Go. Destreza says it will advise consumer businesses on AI in brand strategy, operating models, capability and agency configuration, using specialist AI agents to support research, strategy and creative development. BAT reported £3.621 billion in New Category revenue in 2025.
Sep.22
New York’s 75% Wholesale Tax on Nicotine Pouches Takes Effect Sept. 1, With Aug. 31 Inventory Subject to Floor Tax
New York’s 75% Wholesale Tax on Nicotine Pouches Takes Effect Sept. 1, With Aug. 31 Inventory Subject to Floor Tax
New York State will extend its tobacco products tax to “alternative nicotine products,” including tobacco-free nicotine pouches, from September 1, 2026, at a rate of 75% of the wholesale price. Distributors, wholesalers and retailers must also inventory products held as of 11:59 p.m. on August 31 and pay a floor tax. Vapor products are excluded from the new category and remain subject to New York's separate 20% supplemental sales tax on the retail price.
Aug.26
Reynolds Seeks to Join Altria Lawsuit Challenging FDA PMTA Rule and Calculation of 180-Day Deadline
Reynolds Seeks to Join Altria Lawsuit Challenging FDA PMTA Rule and Calculation of 180-Day Deadline
Three R.J. Reynolds companies are seeking to intervene in a lawsuit filed by Altria subsidiaries Helix Innovations and NJOY challenging the FDA's 2021 PMTA final rule. The companies dispute how the agency uses Acceptance and Filing reviews and completeness determinations to establish when the Tobacco Control Act's 180-day decision period begins. Reynolds has also linked prolonged PMTA reviews to competition from unauthorized vaping products. The FDA, meanwhile, has been accelerating reviews and reducing its backlog.
Sep.14
UK HMRC Unveils Red and Yellow Transitional Vape Duty Stamps Ahead of October Tax Launch
UK HMRC Unveils Red and Yellow Transitional Vape Duty Stamps Ahead of October Tax Launch
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has released sample images of the UK’s transitional vaping duty stamps, showing red and yellow versions ahead of the new Vaping Products Duty and Vaping Duty Stamps Scheme starting on October 1, 2026. Transitional stamps contain physical security features but no digital scanning function. Approved businesses may purchase them through November 30 and affix them through December 31. HMRC has not stated that the red and yellow samples represent different product categories or tax statuses.
Regulations
Sep.02