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.

JUUL2 Sued Within a Week of FDA Authorization as AJ Marketing Alleges Infringement of Programmable Vape Patent
JUUL2 Sued Within a Week of FDA Authorization as AJ Marketing Alleges Infringement of Programmable Vape Patent
Less than a week after JUUL2 received U.S. FDA marketing authorization on August 28, 2026, JUUL Labs was sued for patent infringement in federal court in Delaware. AJ Marketing LLC filed the complaint on September 3, alleging that both JUUL 1 and JUUL2 infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,851,068 B2. The patent covers aspects of programmable electronic vaporization devices, including controls over dose delivery, usage frequency and operating parameters. The plaintiff is seeking reasonable royalties and ongoing royalties tied to the remaining life of the patent. JUUL has not yet publicly responded to the case.
Sep.10
Couche-Tard Posts Double-Digit U.S. Same-Store Growth in Other Nicotine Products, Led by Pouches
Couche-Tard Posts Double-Digit U.S. Same-Store Growth in Other Nicotine Products, Led by Pouches
Alimentation Couche-Tard said U.S. same-store sales in its “other nicotine products” category grew at a double-digit rate in the first quarter of fiscal 2027, led by nicotine pouches, while overall U.S. same-store merchandise revenues increased 1.7%. The company also said its Canadian nicotine business continued to face regulatory pressure and illicit-market headwinds. The U.S. performance coincides with Couche-Tard's participation in efforts to reopen Canadian convenience-store access to authorized nicotine pouches, though the company has not established a direct causal link between the two.
Sep.14
India Steps Up Nicotine Pouch Enforcement as ZYN, White Fox Circulate and Drug Panel Urges Halt to New Nicotine Formulations
India Steps Up Nicotine Pouch Enforcement as ZYN, White Fox Circulate and Drug Panel Urges Halt to New Nicotine Formulations
India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has directed states to step up enforcement against nicotine pouch sales, citing increased availability through online and offline channels and concern about nicotine exposure among children. Reuters reported that international brands including ZYN and White Fox are being sold in India. A study led by ICMR-NICPR found pouches in seven of 10 surveyed locations and identified 68 brands and 445 flavors online. Separately, India's Drugs Technical Advisory Board recommended in August that no new nicotine formulation be approved.
Regulations
Sep.28 by 2Firsts Perspectives
South Korea Fully Reviews Nicotine-Analog and Nicotine-Free Vape Liquid Imports, With Over 99% From China and Chinese Supply-Chain Documents Under Scrutiny
South Korea Fully Reviews Nicotine-Analog and Nicotine-Free Vape Liquid Imports, With Over 99% From China and Chinese Supply-Chain Documents Under Scrutiny
Korea Customs Service has tightened import controls on nicotine-analog and nicotine-free e-cigarette liquids, placing the products under 100% document review and subjecting all e-cigarette liquid import declarations to pre-clearance ingredient analysis. As of September 20, 2026, South Korea had imported about 15 metric tons of nicotine-analog liquids, 99.99% from China, and about 316 metric tons of nicotine-free liquids, including roughly 315 metric tons, or 99.7%, from China. The measures follow South Korea's April expansion of its tobacco definition to include synthetic nicotine products and include new checks on Chinese manufacturing, transaction and export documentation.
Sep.24
2Firsts First Look|China to End VAT Export Rebates on Vape Devices and Nicotine in April 2027, Following Earlier Removal for HTP Devices and Nicotine Vapes
2Firsts First Look|China to End VAT Export Rebates on Vape Devices and Nicotine in April 2027, Following Earlier Removal for HTP Devices and Nicotine Vapes
China's Ministry of Finance and State Taxation Administration announced on October 12, 2026, that value-added tax (VAT) export rebates for vape devices, nicotine and its salts, and certain non-combustible inhalation products will be eliminated from April 1, 2027. The measure adds four tobacco- and nicotine-related customs codes, including 8543400010, which covers vape devices and qualifying empty pods. China previously eliminated rebates for nicotine-containing vaping products and devices under code 8543400090 in April 2026. According to industry classification information held by 2Firsts, the latter currently corresponds to heated tobacco devices. Export excise tax refund and exemption arrangements will remain unchanged.
Special Report
Oct.12
Inside Nicotine-Pouch M&A Through Imperial's Yoik Deal: Latham, KPMG, PwC, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley Form the Adviser Lineup
Inside Nicotine-Pouch M&A Through Imperial's Yoik Deal: Latham, KPMG, PwC, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley Form the Adviser Lineup
Imperial Brands' acquisition of Swedish Helwit owner Yoik Group AB has highlighted the professional-services firms supporting cross-border oral nicotine M&A. Latham & Watkins and KPMG advised Imperial, while PwC and TM & Partners advised Yoik. KPMG also appeared on Imperial's acquisition of Black Buffalo earlier in 2026, while PwC played an extensive role in KT&G's acquisition of Swedish nicotine-pouch company Another Snus Factory. Imperial's public disclosures put the global modern oral nicotine delivery market at approximately £8.8 billion in retail sales and 23.5 billion pouches in 2024
Sep.20