U.S. States and Localities Take Action Against Illegal, Unauthorized E-Cigarettes

On April 22, 2024, the Arizona Attorney General sent letters to chain retailers, such as 7-Eleven, that previously signed a Tobacco Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC) with the Arizona and other state attorneys general. (Tobacco AVCs are agreements with the major chain retailers requiring them to take additional steps to prevent marketing and sales of tobacco products to minors, such as limiting advertising and training employees.)  The letters warned the retailers not to sell tobacco products that do not have marketing authorization from FDA. The Attorney General sent similar letters to individual retail stores in Arizona that sell tobacco products.

• People of the State of California v. Flumgio Technology Inc., Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, filed January 15, 2025, complaint.

On January 15, 2025, the California Attorney General brought suit against two California companies that imported, distributed and sold Flum brand e-cigarettes, as well as their founder. One of the brands is the FLUM Mello, which contains the equivalent amount of nicotine as 34 packs of cigarettes, is a disposable with an animated screen, and comes in flavors like cherry and strawberry. Another brand is the FLUM Clear, marketed as not having a flavor; the complaint alleges it has a menthol or mint flavor. The complaint states that these e-cigarettes have not received marketing granted orders from FDA. The complaint alleges that sale of these brands violates state law prohibiting sale of flavored products, that both businesses failed to hold the necessary licenses, and that the individual defendant made false statements in the license applications including that the businesses would not operate as importers when in fact they did. California seeks injunctive relief and monetary penalties. In July 2025 the court denied defendants’ demurrer.

• People v Ejuicesteals.com, E.D. California 23-cv-01726, filed December 14, 2023, complaint

On December 14, 2023, the California Attorney General filed suit against EJuicesteals.com, a California business selling vapor products on the internet, and its CEO. California alleged numerous violations of the PACT Act, California’s remote sales laws, and the state’s unfair competition law. The complaint states that these products have not received marketing granted orders from FDA. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to the People on all causes of action and issued a permanent injunction, but set for trial the determination of the amount of civil penalties. Defendants objected to the findings and recommendations.

• People v. E-Juice Vapor, Inc., C.D. California 23-cv-02372, filed December 14, 2023, complaint

Also on December 14, 2023, the Attorney General filed suit against two vape distributors and retailers located in Fullerton, E-Juice Vapor and Flawless Vape, and their principals. California alleged numerous violations of the PACT Act, California’s remote sales statutes, the STAKE Act, and the state’s unfair competition law. The court issued discovery sanctions, struck defendants’ answer, and entered default on December 19, 2024. On February 14, 2025, California moved for default judgment.

On January 15, 2025, the Connecticut Attorney General announced service of investigative demands (subpoenas) on twelve retailers and two wholesalers in Connecticut that had been found to be selling illegal imported flavored e-cigarettes. The Attorney General stated that the purpose of the investigation is to identify the suppliers and distributors of the unauthorized products.  Press release.

On January 16, 2025, the Hawaii Attorney General sent letters to over 800 tobacco retailers and distributors in Hawaii asking them not to sell tobacco products that have not been authorized for sale by FDA. Press release.

• People of the State of Illinois v. Chicago Merchandize Co., Cook County Circuit Court, No. 2025CH00422, filed January 16, 2025, complaint.

On January 16, 2025, the Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit against three Illinois businesses that market and sell Posh e-cigarettes. The complaint alleged that defendants imported flavored e-cigarettes from China and sold them in Illinois. No Posh e-cigarettes have received market authorization and one of the defendants received an order denying authorization to market these products. Defendants market the products on social media including using the hashtag #prom for the Prom Noir model, use marketing similar to Disney’s marketing of the Tron franchise, and sell an interactive e-cigarette that can be used to make calls and listen to music. The complaint alleged violations of Illinois’s Preventing Youth Vaping Act (which prohibits sale of e-cigarettes that do not have FDA pre-market authorization, and marketing of e-cigarettes in ways that encourage minors to use e-cigarettes) and Consumer Fraud Act (which prohibits unfair competition and unfair or deceptive acts.) 

On August 3, 2026, the court entered a consent decree resolving the action. Posh agreed to pay a $20 million penalty and to stop selling Posh e-cigarettes in Illinois that did not have FDA marketing authorization, and to conspicuously disclose that its e-cigarettes are not for sale in Illinois. Posh was also enjoined from certain types of marketing including using cartoons, images or characters similar to those used to advertise to children, visual or textual references to media popular with minors, depictions of an individual using an e-cigarette, and depiction of an individual under the age of 35, and was required to age-gate its social and internet media.

• State of Minnesota v. Maduro Distributors, Inc., dba Loon, District Court, 2nd Judicial District, Ramsey County, filed July 15 2026, complaint.

On July 15, 2026, the Minnesota Attorney General filed suit against Maduro Distributors, a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a Loon, for marketing and selling vapor products that appeal to youth, such as Cotton Candy, Strawberry Popsicle, Blue Razz Slushy, Banana Taffy, and Dragon’s Blood. Loon’s marketing also referenced characters from Nintendo’s Super Mario franchise and from movies such as Frankenstein. Loon had similar advertising materials in Spanish. Minnesota’s complaint also alleges that Loon misrepresented the federal status of its products in ways that were confusing and misleading to consumers. For instance, it represented that its products had been “accepted” by FDA when FDA had not authorized marketing of any Loon product. In fact, in 2021 FDA warned Loon that its products were adulterated and misbranded.

• State of Minnesota v. Venture Concepts Group LLC dba High Light Vape Co., District Court, 2nd Judicial District, Ramsey County, No. 62-CV-25-382, filed January 15, 2025, complaint.

On January 15, 2025, the Minnesota Attorney General filed suit against High Light Vape Company, a Florida business, two of its managers, and an affiliated entity. The complaint quoted the company’s marketing that it made an e-cigarette that “cleverly disguises itself as a highlighter, ensuring seamless and covert vaping in any setting” and for “stealth vaping” in places where vaping is prohibited. The product came in flavors like strawberry cheesecake and magic fruit. On April 7, 2025, a consent judgment was entered, in which defendants attested that High Light was no longer in business and agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty.  

The New Jersey Attorney General investigated King Distribution, a distributor, and 17 related smoke shops, for sales and distribution of flavored e-cigarettes in violation of state law. On May 15, 2026, they entered into a consent order resolving the investigation. The companies agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty plus costs, and to adhere to lawful business practices in the future. 

On January 16, 2025, the Attorney General sent warning letters to nearly 11,000 New Jersey businesses reminding them that sale of flavored e-cigarettes violates state law.  Press release.

he Attorney General subsequently issued 16 notices of violation  against smoke shops and assessed $72,000 in penalties. Earlier, in August 2024, the Attorney General issued notices of violation to 19 retailers, assessing civil penalties of $4,500 each, for selling flavored e-cigarettes. Press release.

• New Mexico v. Circle K Stores, Inc., et al., No. D-101-CV-2026-00900 (N.M. Dist. Ct. 1st Jud. Dist. Santa Fe Cnty. 2026) complaint

On March 31, 2026, the New Mexico Attorney General filed an action against major convenience store chains and distributors for their role selling flavored disposable e-cigarettes that drive youth nicotine addiction. The complaint alleged that the products are marketed in bright packaging and come in flavors that are attractive to minors, in violation of the state’s unfair and unconscionable trade practices law. The defendants include Circle K stores, Oxxo stores, J&M Distributors, Max Distributing, and related entities.

• People of the State of New York v. Puff Bar, et al., S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-01445, filed February 20, 2025 complaint

On February 20, 2025, the New York Attorney General filed suit against 13 e-cigarette manufacturers, distributors and retailers, including those marketing and selling Puff Bar, Elf Bar, Geek Bar, Breeze, MYLE, and other unauthorized brands in New York. The complaint alleged that these businesses violated New York’s ban on the sale of flavored vapor products, violated the age verification, labeling, weight and reporting requirements of the PACT Act, violated the state’s tobacco licensing laws, failed to disclose ingredients in violation of state law, and offered discounts and coupons and sponsored social events in violation of state law. The complaint also alleged that defendants engaged in deceptive marketing and misrepresentations in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and common law nuisance, gross negligence, and willful misconduct. On March 31, 2026, the district court denied most of the arguments raised in defendants’ motion to dismiss.  

• People of the State of New York v. G-Smoke360 Corp. dba G Smoke, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Herkimer County, filed January 16, 2025, complaint.

On January 16, 2025, the Attorney General filed suit against two companies operating a vape shop in New York – G Smoke 360 Corp. and Liberty Smokeland – and their owners, for selling flavored e-cigarettes in violation of state laws prohibiting the sale of flavored e-cigarettes, sales to minors, and operating without state licenses. G Smoke had previously been fined and the owners stipulated to various violations including offering 5,700 packs of flavored e-cigarettes for sale and displaying e-cigarettes for self-service. On March 30, 2026, the court granted New York’s motion for default judgment.

On April 5, 2024, the Ohio Attorney General sent letters to Ohio retailers warning them not to sell e-cigarettes that do not have marketing authorization from the FDA, and threatening legal action if they did so. The Attorney General subsequently filed lawsuits against three Ohio retailers alleging unfair, deceptive or unconscionable acts in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, violations of the Exclusions and Limitations in Advertisements Rule, and violations of Substantiation of Claims in Advertising. Each complaint alleged the retailer sold e-cigarette brands with misleading statements on the packs stating “Sale Only Allowed in the United States” even though the products did not have marketing authorization orders from the FDA and were illegal under federal law.

• State of Ohio v Central Tobacco and Stuff d/b/a Central Tobacco, Delaware County, 24-CVH-070664, filed July 9, 2024, complaint 

The trial court dismissed the action and, on appeal, the 5th District court affirmed, concluding that the lawsuit was federally preempted. State ex rel. Yost v. Cent. Tobacco and Stuff Inc., 2025-Ohio-4613 (5th Dist.) The matter is now pending before the state’s Supreme Court. CTFK and other public health organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Ohio. 

• State of Ohio v. Orrville Tobacco & Vape Shop LLC, No. 2024 CVC-H 000327 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Wayne Cnty. 2024) 

The trial court dismissed the action, but on appeal the court reversed, concluding that the matter was not federally preempted. State ex rel. Yost v. Orrville Tobacco & Vape Shop, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-983.

• State of Ohio v. Elevate Smoke, LLC, No. A2403034 (Hamilton Cnty. Com. Pl. 2024)

The trial court dismissed the action and, on appeal, the 1st District court affirmed, concluding that the lawsuit was federally preempted. State ex rel. Yost v. Elevate Smoke, LLC, 2025-Ohio-5652, ¶ 72. (1st Dist.) 

On October 16, 2024, the Vermont Attorney General announced a settlement with Amazon relating to violations of the state’s ban against remote sales and deliveries of tobacco and nicotine products to customers in the state. According to the Attorney General’s press release, third-party sellers listed products with Amazon that appeared innocuous and then, after receiving Amazon’s approval, revised the listings to reveal that the products were vaping and tobacco products. Amazon paid a $400,000 fine and agreed to improve its internal procedures to detect this type of manipulation by third-party sellers, including to provide the Attorney General, each year, with a list of sellers that sold e-cigarettes to customers in Vermont. Assurance of Discontinuance.

In August 2025, the Attorney General for the District of Columbia reached a settlement with several 7-Eleven stores for violating the District’s prohibition against selling vapor products within a quarter mile of any school. During the course of an investigation the District found that certain stores sold over 7,500 such products even though they were within a quarter mile of a school. 7-Eleven agreed to modify its procedures and policies, including to train personnel and monitor performance, and to pay a $1,200,000 civil penalty.  

On December 12, 2024, the Attorney General for the District of Columbia reached a settlement agreement with Swedish Match North America LLC regarding violations of the District’s ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products. The Attorney General claimed that Swedish Match sold flavored Zyn nicotine pouches to customers in the District, both through retailers and directly through Zyn’s website. Swedish Match agreed to make operational changes, to provide sales information to the Attorney General, and to pay a $1.2 million penalty. Assurance of voluntary compliance.

• City of New York v. Magellan Tech., Inc., S.D.N.Y., 23 CIV. 5880 (LLS), 2024 WL 2701956, filed July 10, 2023, amended complaint 

In 2023, the City of New York sued several online distributors and retailers, as well as their principals, seeking injunctive relief, damages, and civil penalties, for distribution and sale of e-cigarette brands that do not have FDA authorization. The defendants were located in Texas, New York, and other states. The complaint alleged delivery of vape products in violation of the PACT Act (NYC has standing to sue under the PACT Act because it has authority to levy excise and sales taxes); racketeering under 18 USC 1961, 1341, and 1343; conspiracy to violate RICO; sale of flavored products in violation of state and city law; and public nuisance by selling tobacco products to minors.

Defendants moved to dismiss. On May 24, 2024, the district court allowed the public nuisance and state law claims to proceed; allowed some PACT Act claims to proceed and dismissed the others with leave to amend; and dismissed one out-of-state defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.

• City of New York v. EnviroMD Group, LLC, NY Supreme Court, New York County, 451009/2024, filed April 4, 2024, complaint

In April 2024, the City sued another eleven businesses for violating “nearly every federal, New York State and New York City law regulating the marketing, distribution, and sale of flavored e-cigarettes.” The action, filed in state court, sought injunctive relief, damages, and penalties, for distribution and sale of millions of dollars of vape products that do not have FDA authorization. Allegations in the complaint include sale of flavored products in violation of the PACT Act, and state and city law, NY PHL 1399-mm-(1), 1399-ll, and NYC Admin. Code 17-715; sale and marketing of products without holding a state “vape certificate” and delivering them without marking them as vapor products in violation of state law, NY PHL 1399-ll; and public nuisance. Defendants removed the case to federal court. On July 14, 2025, the federal district court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss, and concluded that the City properly pled claims under the PACT Act because it levies an excise tax and a sales tax on tobacco products, as well as violations of state statutes, local ordinances, and public nuisance. 

• The City of New York v. Price Point Distributors Inc. et al., E.D.N.Y. 24-cv-07762 filed November 7, 2024 complaint

On November 7, 2024, the City filed suit against a Farmingdale, New York, distributor and online retailer and its principals, for violating laws regulating the sale of electronic cigarettes. The complaint stated that Price Point describes itself as “America’s No. 1 Online Distributor” for vaping products and that its website received 165,000 visits in a month. The complaint alleged violations of the reporting and shipping requirements of the PACT Act; RICO violations including a tax evasion scheme and conspiracy; violations of state laws regarding shipping and supplying unlicensed businesses with e-cigarettes; and municipal law regarding the sale of flavored e-cigarettes in the City. On May 22, 2025, defendants agreed to various conditions including not to sell or deliver products into the City of New York. 

• People v. Carpentieri, et al. Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, 24STCV11322, filed May 3, 2024, complaint

On May 3, 2024, the City of Los Angeles filed an action against a chain of over 20 tobacco stores located in and around Los Angeles, an online retailer, and their CEO. The complaint alleged violations of the City’s prohibition on online sales, the state and City prohibitions on the sale of flavored products, and the state’s prohibition on sales to minors, all of which constituted unlawful acts in violation of the state Unfair Competition Law. In September 2025, the City announced a settlement including an injunction and payment of $350,000 in civil penalties.

• City and County of San Francisco v. Bass Gift Shop SF, et al., Superior Court, County of San Francisco, CGC-24-618016

In 2024 San Francisco filed an action against several corporations and principals that operated 11 vape shops in four bay area counties, that sold flavored tobacco products in violation of state and local laws. The lawsuit arose from a gift store’s repeated disregard of City notices of violations, which prompted further investigation and discovery that the owners operated similar “gift stores” in other cities. Investigators purchased unlawful products from all of these retailers. On March 3, 2025, defendants agreed to surrender all unlawful products and pay $250,000 in civil penalties, attorney’s fees, and costs. Stipulated judgment

• People v. Millenial One, Inc. d/b/a The Finest E-Liquid, Superior Court, County of San Francisco Superior Court, CGC-23-610794, filed December 4, 2023, complaint 

In 2023, San Francisco sued three southern California wholesalers and retailers, seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees. The complaint alleged that each defendant made online sales of flavored tobacco products that had not been authorized by FDA, to individuals in San Francisco, in violation of California’s statutes regulating remote sales of tobacco products and of San Francisco’s Health Code 19S.2 prohibiting the sale of flavored products. These unlawful acts also constituted unfair business practices in violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law.

On December 20, 2024, the Superior Court entered a stipulated judgment enjoining defendants permanently from selling flavored products to persons in San Francisco and requiring them to certify their continued compliance each year. The two companies were ordered to pay a total of $68,000 in penalties, fees and costs.  

• People of the State of California v. Vapor Authority, Inc., et al., San Diego Superior, 24CU024481C, complaint 

On November 21, 2024, the City Attorney filed an action against Vapor Authority and its corporate officers, for selling flavored tobacco products in violation of state and local laws prohibiting the sale of such products. Defendants sold flavored products such as Vapor Authority Unicorn Fruit Loops, Sour Apple Ice, Glazed Donuts, Birthday Cannoli, and French Toast Cinnamon Sugar. On October 7, 2025, the defendants agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty and to comply with an injunction prohibiting sale of flavored products. 

• People of the State of California v. Yazan R. Muowahid, et al., San Diego Superior, 24CU024294C, complaint

Also on November 21, 2024, the City Attorney filed an action against Yazan Muowahid and several San Diego area retailers for selling flavored e-cigarettes in violation of state and local laws. Defendants sold these products in face-to-face and remote transactions. The parties stipulated to a judgment on December 2, 2025. Defendants agreed to pay $200,000 in civil penalties and costs, and to comply with an injunction prohibiting sale of flavored tobacco products.  

• People v Payless Smoke Shop Inc. Superior Court, County of San Diego, 37-2023-362243, complaint 

On August 22, 2023, the City of San Diego sued Payless Smoke Shop and Keg ‘N Bottle, two chain retailers located in San Diego and other southern California cities, and their principals. The complaint alleged that they sold flavored tobacco products in violation of state and municipal law prohibiting sale of such products, and that this unlawful conduct also violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. At one of the stores, after selling a product to an investigator, a clerk asked the investigator to conceal the product in a bag when leaving the store because selling it was illegal. Judgment was entered on April 9, 2024, and defendants consented to $35,000 in civil penalties.