Five years after passing a flavored tobacco ban, the California Attorney General’s Office this week released a draft detailing how tobacco manufacturers can request placement of products on the state’s Unflavored Tobacco List (UTL), a key requirement under the state’s flavored tobacco ban. The list is essentially the state’s official registry of tobacco products that are certified as not having a “characterizing flavor” — meaning they don’t taste or smell like menthol, fruit, candy, mint, vanilla, chocolate, or any other non-tobacco flavor.
According to the draft, companies wanting to sell tobacco and nicotine products must file an online application for each “Brand Style” they want listed, certify that the product has no characterizing flavor, waive sovereign immunity, consent to California court jurisdiction, and submit a sample in its largest retail package. A $300 fee per product must be paid online, and applications must be truthful under penalty of perjury. Products submitted by the initial deadline will be considered for the first official list, set for release by Dec. 31, 2025.
Products that require federal premarket authorization but haven’t received it are generally ineligible—unless they meet specific conditions, such as being on the U.S. market by certain dates and having timely FDA applications still pending. Exceptions apply if the FDA says no authorization is needed, a court vacates a denial, or the product is a variant of an already-listed brand.
“The UTL will cause many companies to stop selling products in California because of the registration process,” wrote Charlie Minato for Halfwheel. “Many might choose not to sell limited edition cigars in California because of the added paperwork. Furthermore, because companies will need prior authorization to sell the products, it might mean that California retailers will receive delayed shipments of new items as cigar companies wait for the attorney general’s office to approve a product for the UTL.
“It’s not just a problem for California-based retailers; this would apply to all shipments going to California, meaning that a retailer in Florida would run the risk of fines if they were to ship a product not on the UTL to a consumer in California.”