Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XV Chapter 94
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94, § 307B (2026)

Manufacture of tobacco products; annual reports including added constituents and nicotine yield ratings; disclosure; exclusions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 307B. For the purpose of protecting the public health, any manufacturer of cigarettes, snuff or chewing tobacco sold in the commonwealth shall provide the department of public health with an annual report, in a form and at a time specified by that department, which lists for each brand of such product sold the following information:

(a) The identity of any added constituent other than tobacco, water or reconstituted tobacco sheet made wholly from tobacco, to be listed in descending order according to weight, measure, or numerical count; and

(b) The nicotine yield ratings, which shall accurately predict nicotine intake for average consumers, based on standards to be established by the department of public health.

The nicotine yield ratings so provided, and any other such information in the annual reports with respect to which the department determines that there is a reasonable scientific basis for concluding that the availability of such information could reduce risks to public health, shall be public records; provided, however, that before any public disclosure of such information the department shall request the advice of the attorney general whether such disclosure would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property, and shall not disclose such information unless and until the attorney general advises that such disclosure would not constitute an unconstitutional taking.

This section shall not require a manufacturer, in its report to the department or otherwise, to identify or disclose the specific amount of any ingredient that has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Public Health Service, United States Department of Health and Human Services (''FDA''), or its successor agency, as safe when burned and inhaled or that has been designated by the FDA, or its successor agency, as generally recognized as safe when burned and inhaled, according to the Generally Recognized As Safe list of the FDA.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1997–2007 · leading case: Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger, 122 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger, 122 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 1997). · cites it 6× “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94, § 307B (the “Disclosure Act”).”
Phillip Morris Inc. v. Reilly, 113 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D. Mass. 2000). · cites it 10× “They filed these suits seeking declaratory and injunc-tive relief prohibiting the defendants from enforcing certain provisions of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94, § 307B (the “Disclosure Act”).”
Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger, 957 F. Supp. 327 (D. Mass. 1997). · cites it 2× “Mass. Gen. L. ch. 94, § 307B (“Section 307B”).”
Good v. Altria Grp., Inc., 501 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007). “3d at 62 (quoting Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94, § 307B (1996)). In declining to imply a preemptive effect from the FCLAA, Cipollone reasoned that “[w]hen Congress has considered the issue of pre-emption and has included in the enacted legislation a provision explicitly addressing that…”
In re a Grand Jury Investigation, 772 N.E.2d 9 (Mass. 2002). “62C, § 8 (mandatory reporting to Commissioner of Revenue by entities doing business in Commonwealth); G. L. c. 94, § 307B (mandatory reporting by manufacturers of cigarette, snuff, and chewing tobacco).”
Phillip Morris, Inc. v. Harshbarger, 159 F.3d 670 (1st Cir. 1998). “The plaintiffs in this case, manufacturers of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products, 1 mounted a constitutional challenge to the novel ingredient-reporting requirements of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 94, § 307B (Section 307B).”
Philip Morris, Inc. v. Reilly, 312 F.3d 24 (2002). · cites it 5× “Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94, § 307B (2002). Currently, the appellees, a group of tobacco companies, treat these ingredient lists as trade secrets and either do not disclose brand-specific information at all or do not disclose it without some guarantee of confidentiality.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.