California Unflavored Tobacco Law Registration Deadline Passes- Dunbarton pulls out!

[Ralph]

A judge denied a temporary restraining order filed by the industry hoping to prevent the law from going into effect on January 1, 2026. As a result. manufacturers who did not register their products on the "Unflavored Tobacco List" by October 9th cannot sell a product in California on January 1, 2026. They had to register EVERY SINGLE marca AND vitola they wanted to sell, not just the line.

Further compliance as follows:

• Pay a $300 application fee for the first year. A $150 annual renewal fee will be required to remain on the list.
• Submit a box of the product to the California Attorney General’s office.
• Provide the California Attorney General’s office with basic details about the product, such as length, ring gauge, weight, quantity, etc.
• Certify that the product meets California’s law that bans most products from having characterizing flavors other than tobacco.

I think the second bullet point is a hell of a way to build up your humidor!

Some exemptions to the law:

• Flavored premium cigars with a wholesale price of $12 or more
• Flavored shisha/hookah tobacco sold in licensed stores that allow only people ages 21 or older F
• Flavored loose-leaf pipe tobacco

Steve Saka of Dunbarton Tobacco will not register any of his cigars, rendering them contraband in California.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

If enough companies refuse to register it could really impact retailers.

 

[cohibasurfer]

I live in California and our Politicians do not act on our behalf. At least not mine. I don't know many Californians that would vote for this if it was upfront and not pushed through under the radar. And I don't blame Saka one fkn bit. It's extortion at the State level.

 

[bfreebern]

I love their stance!

Question though, I'm assuming online retailers won't be allowed to sell Dunbarton products to those who live in CA?

 

[Ralph]

I love their stance!

Question though, I'm assuming online retailers won't be allowed to sell Dunbarton products to those who live in CA?

Dunbarton is removing California Prop 65 warnings form boxes, so that makes sense that online retailers won't be able to ship those smokes there.

 

[H. Vachon]

Submit a box of the product to the California Attorney General’s office.

Wonder if they need any interns

 

[dawgie]

Dunbartons are the new Cubans! (at least in CA)
.

 

[MX]

I am waiting to see how this impacts business like e Small Batch Cigars

 

[Pugman1943]

So if Rocky Patel has what 40 - 60 different vitolas, he has to send one box of each to the AG's office? Really a pity the entire industry didn't pull out. Be one hell of a war dance around the capital. Asshats!

 

[hydro-terp]

Kali gotta Kali.

HT

 

[Ralph]

So if Rocky Patel has what 40 - 60 different vitolas, he has to send one box of each to the AG's office? Really a pity the entire industry didn't pull out. Be one hell of a war dance around the capital. Asshats!

Insane isn’t it? I think 60 might be a conservative estimate for RP!

 

[Nikon_Assasin]

So if Rocky Patel has what 40 - 60 different vitolas, he has to send one box of each to the AG's office? Really a pity the entire industry didn't pull out. Be one hell of a war dance around the capital. Asshats!

It's been an ongoing discussion here at the office, all the big companies should just band together & say to hell with California.

 

[cohibasurfer]

Illusione has a different view.

 

[rbbrock]

It's not something I've looked into, but I wonder if the online retailers (out of state) couldn't just ignore the law? If they are not in California, they are not subject to California law. Just as I am not.

 

[cohibasurfer]

There are a few already out there that do this. However... California has got to some of the bigger retailers like CI and a few others that send our purchase info to our state to collect the tobacco tax by mailed official bills of sale. I stopped buying from them. Our poor B&M's here have a hard row to hoe. Many smokers that would frequent a lounge just can't afford it to often. Yet all these cig stores can sell candy flavored vapes that are so harmful health wise with impunity.

 

[rbbrock]

There are a few already out there that do this. However... California has got to some of the bigger retailers like CI and a few others that send our purchase info to our state to collect the tobacco tax by mailed official bills of sale. I stopped buying from them. Our poor B&M's here have a hard row to hoe. Many smokers that would frequent a lounge just can't afford it to often. Yet all these cig stores can sell candy flavored vapes that are so harmful health wise with impunity.

It's absurd on so many levels.

 

[Mizicke5273]

There are a few already out there that do this. However... California has got to some of the bigger retailers like CI and a few others that send our purchase info to our state to collect the tobacco tax by mailed official bills of sale. I stopped buying from them. Our poor B&M's here have a hard row to hoe. Many smokers that would frequent a lounge just can't afford it to often. Yet all these cig stores can sell candy flavored vapes that are so harmful health wise with impunity.

It's absurd on so many levels.

If only these people creating and signing laws knew of logic........

 

[Ralph]

It's not something I've looked into, but I wonder if the online retailers (out of state) couldn't just ignore the law? If they are not in California, they are not subject to California law. Just as I am not.

There are always some smaller retailers that ignore state laws, but most online retailers don't (such as those of Utah and Hawaii currently) and most make their shipping policies known on their websites.

Illusione has a different view.

View attachment 101756

So Illusione complied with the new laws for part of their lineup and can only sell those SKUs on 1/1/26. Wonder if every additional SKU registered will have to wait 3 months for approval. What a shite-show.

 

[hydro-terp]

It's not something I've looked into, but I wonder if the online retailers (out of state) couldn't just ignore the law? If they are not in California, they are not subject to California law. Just as I am not.

25 years ago you couldnt buy reg cap mags in MD but online retailers would still ship here because they werent physically in the state selling. Possession is not illegal. Then the AG sent nasty letters threatening to sue all of them and that ended that. There are retailers in that sector that just wont sell anything to MD because they dont want to deal with the BS.

In this case I would assume Kali would go straight to a lawsuit if a vendor were to sell online to Kali people and not be on the magic list. State AGs are playing with limitless house money.

There are a lot of parallels between "gun control" and the anti smoking stuff. Unfortunately for smokers there is no National Smoking Association, at least of the same equitable level.

HT

 

[rbbrock]

25 years ago you couldnt buy reg cap mags in MD but online retailers would still ship here because they werent physically in the state selling. Possession is not illegal. Then the AG sent nasty letters threatening to sue all of them and that ended that. There are retailers in that sector that just wont sell anything to MD because they dont want to deal with the BS.

In this case I would assume Kali would go straight to a lawsuit if a vendor were to sell online to Kali people and not be on the magic list. State AGs are playing with limitless house money.

There are a lot of parallels between "gun control" and the anti smoking stuff. Unfortunately for smokers there is no National Smoking Association, at least of the same equitable level.

HT

That's the stupid part. Sure, they could sue. For what? It's bullshit overreach and they know it. But as you said, they're playing with unlimited house money, versus making the retailer pay out of pocket for counsel. An almost exact parallel to the 2A issues, which I am also a big proponent of. We call it "lawfare" (instead of warfare) in that community. Thankfully there has been a lot of good headway made on that issue lately, though still a ways to go. As you said, there is no grassroots National Cigar Association or equivalent, nor are cigars/smoking covered in the Constitution, so we truly are at the mercy of the state legislatures.

I am glad to see some companies telling CA to stuff it, though. I'm sick of them thinking they can control the entire market on various issues (gas cans, "Prop 65" warnings, diesel trucks, vehicle emissions, etc.). No offense to the CA members here, but that state needs to stay in its own fucking lane and let the rest of the country drive in ours.

 

[hydro-terp]

I am glad to see some companies telling CA to stuff it, though.

Unfortunately they could care less about them not playing along. Thats not want they want. They would be just super happy if no one in CA ever smoked anything but weed ever again. I could rant for days about my states similar situation on many things but that's not for here. My guys have straight out said they are going to redistrict and pinch out our ONLY republican rep in congress. Its so bad they are just flat out saying it. I dont vote. Its baked in here.

Its Friday. Everyone crack a beer or pour a dram and light one up.

HT