Overview

Pennsylvania law establishes a state-managed directory for electronic nicotine delivery
systems (ENDS) products. Only products that comply with certification requirements and
are listed on the Pennsylvania directory may be legally sold in the Commonwealth following
enforcement.

Important Dates

• April 21, 2026: An ENDS manufacturer seeking to have its product included on the ENDS directory must submit a certification to the Attorney General.
• June 20, 2026: The ENDS directory will be published.
• October 19, 2026: ENDS products not appearing on the directory shall be subject to seizure by the Commonwealth.
• Annual: Submission of a certification to the Attorney General by April 21 of each year after 2026 to remain on the directory.

What You CLEARLY CAN Sell

• Products that have submitted required certifications and are listed on the Pennsylvania ENDS Directory may be sold.
• The directory is maintained by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and can be accessed here: https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/ends/
• Manufacturers must certify that each product complies with federal FDA requirements, including PMTA status (submitted, under review, or authorized).

“Electronic Cigarette that Contains Nicotine” means an electronic cigarette labeled,
advertised, or marketed as containing nicotine or an electronic cigarette determined by
the department or the Attorney General to contain nicotine. The term includes an
electronic cigarette that bears the same brand name as an electronic cigarette determined
to contain nicotine by the department or the Attorney General.

“Timely filed premarket tobacco product application.” An application under 21 U.S.C. § 387j
(relating to application for review of certain tobacco products) for an electronic cigarette
that contains nicotine derived from tobacco marketed in the United States as of August 8,
2016, that was submitted to the FDA on or before September 9, 2020, and was accepted for
filing by the FDA.

What You CLEARLY CANNOT Sell

• Any ENDS product not listed on the Pennsylvania directory.

What Products Should You Consult Legal Counsel Before Selling

• Any Hardware or Open System Devices that Do Not Contain Nicotine. 
• Any component parts such as coils or batteries
• Zero MG products or products that do not contain nicotine

Responsibilities by Entity

Manufacturers

• Submit certification forms to the Pennsylvania Attorney General
• For electronic cigarettes containing nicotine manufactured outside of the United  States, the manufacturer must provide a complete list of importers into the United States who sell the  products in the Commonwealth and the brand families sold by the importers 
• Pay required registration fees
• Provide documentation demonstrating compliance with federal FDA requirements
• If a non-resident manufacturer, you must have an agent for service of process registered in Pennsylvania
• Must submit a surety bond as required of at least $50,000. This amount may be required to be higher by the Attorney General

Distributors / Wholesalers

• Verify products are listed before selling or shipping into Pennsylvania 

Retailers / Sellers

• Sell ONLY products listed on the Pennsylvania Directory 
• Stop selling non-listed products after the compliance deadline 
  • Note: 120-day sell-through provision after the Attorney General first makes the registry available 
• Monitor directory updates regularly

Penalties for Non-Compliance

• Civil penalties can include: 
  • Up to $1,500 per product per day for retailers, wholesalers, or importers (standard violations)  
  • Up to $1,000 per violation per product until the offending product is removed by manufacturers.  
• Each non-compliant product offered for sale may be treated as a separate  violation, which can significantly increase total liability 
• The Attorney General may also pursue other enforcement actions: 
  • Injunctive relief (court orders to stop sales) 
  • Product removal from the market  
  • Seizure of non-compliant products  

Ongoing violations can result in cumulative penalties and escalated enforcement actions. 

Important Note 

Federal FDA requirements still apply. Pennsylvania’s law adds an additional state-level restriction.

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT INTENDED NOR SHOULD BE RELIED ON AS LEGAL ADVICE. PLEASE CONSULT LEGAL COUNSEL ABOUT YOUR SPECIFIC PRODUCTS. 

State of New Mexico, ex rel, Raul Torrez, Attorney General v. Circle K Stores, Inc., et al. County of Santa Fe, First Judicial District, Case No. D101-CV-2026-00900

Implications for Vapor Industry
VTA is monitoring a newly filed lawsuit brought by the State of New Mexico against several retailers and distributors involved in the sale of flavored disposable vapor products. We recognize that actions of this nature can raise concerns across the industry, and wanted to provide some perspective. The State’s claims rely heavily on generalized public health concerns regarding youth nicotine use and the characteristics of flavored products, rather than identifying specific misrepresentations or unlawful conduct by individual businesses. The State’s theory attempts to treat common product characteristics — such as flavor descriptions, packaging presentation, or consumer demand — as evidence of unfair or deceptive practices.

Key Takeaways for Industry Members

1. The Complaint advances untested legal theories directed at the supply chain
While the Complaint is framed as a public health enforcement action, it relies on expansive and lnovel theories of liability that seek to extend responsibility beyond manufacturers to include participants throughout the lawful supply chain, including retailers and distributor entities whose role is limited to the sale of finished products. The State alleges that participation in ordinary commercial relationships may constitute actionable conduct where products are later alleged to appeal to youth.  Novel and/or expansive theories often face serious scrutiny from courts.  We expect that to be the case here as the State attempts to advance the case.

2. Claims rely heavily on generalized policy concerns rather than individualized misconduct
The Complaint includes wholly incomplete facts and makes misrepresentations regarding youth nicotine use trends and potential health effects of e-cigarettes to support its case. But, the Complaint does not clearly identify specific misrepresentations directed to consumers by the named defendants. This approach reflects an effort to use consumer protection statutes to regulate product characteristics that remain the subject of ongoing federal regulatory review.  This too will invite serious scrutiny from the court.

3. The case seeks to expand traditional interpretations of “unfair practices” law
The State alleges that the marketing and distribution of flavored products may constitute unfair or deceptive conduct even where such products remain widely sold in regulated retail environments subject to age restrictions. Courts have historically required clear statutory authority before extending liability theories that could affect lawful commercial activity.  In Ohio, multiple cases filed by the Attorney General seeking to impose liability under that state’s consumer fraud and/or deceptive practices statute were dismissed based on federal preemption grounds.

4.  Example of Overreach:  Failure to warn claims ring hollow.
The State asserts numerous claims against the distributors and retailers asserting their failure to warn consumers (specifically youth and their parents) about the addictiveness of nicotine.  Of course, every product sold bear the specific federally mandated warning in the specific federally mandated formatting which expressly states that the product contains nicotine and that nicotine is an addictive chemical.  Thus, efforts by the State to impose some higher standard likely will be viewed skeptically.

VTA Perspective

VTA believes it is important for members and industry to understand that:

• The Complaint does not alter existing federal regulatory requirements governing vapor products.
• The parties to this case have numerous defenses to challenge the State’s novel and expansive legal theories.
• The court will closely scrutinize State’s attempts to expand liability theories beyond established precedent, particularly when the alleged facts require serious leaps of logic.
• Similar cases advancing similar novel theories, including those involving vaping products,  have faced substantial legal challenges and defeats before reaching the merits.
• To date, the State has not sought to enjoin the sale of these products, but is pursuing this case directly against the named defendants who will mount their defense.

VTA is actively monitoring developments in this case and evaluating potential implications for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. We are coordinating with legal experts and policy stakeholders to ensure that the interests of responsible industry participants are represented, and will look for opportunities to do so in this case.

We encourage members and industry to remain calm and to continue adhering to applicable age-verification requirements, marketing standards, and regulatory obligations, as compliance remains the strongest safeguard against enforcement risk.

VTA will provide updates as the case progresses.

To stay informed and join our fight, please support our various efforts to fight against government overreach at the federal and state levels. You can do so by joining VTA TODAY!

Alabama and Virginia

These alerts are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Companies with questions should consult their legal counsel.

🔔 Member Alert: Alabama

Alabama Supreme Court Preserves TRO Blocking ENDS Registry Enforcement

Case Reference: VTA v. Marshall, Civ. No. 3-CV-2025-901284
Applies To: VTA Members, Retailers, and Distributors of ENDS Products in Alabama

---

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court has denied the State’s request to stay a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that blocks enforcement of key provisions of Act 2025-403, Alabama’s ENDS PMTA registry law. As a result, the TRO remains in effect during the appeal, and Alabama enforcement officers may not enforce its PMTA registry or U.S.-manufacturing requirements against covered parties (see below) at this time.

---

What This Means for Members — Right Now

❌ What the State CANNOT Enforce (For Now)

Alabama may not enforce provisions that require:

• ENDS products to have FDA authorization or a pending PMTA
• Compliance with the PMTA registry created by Act 2025-403
• ENDS products to be manufactured in the United States

---

👥 Who Is Covered by the TRO

The TRO applies to:

• Vapor Technology Association (VTA) and VTA members as of 2:00 p.m. on August 12, 2025
• Southside Vapes, LLC

We believe this protection also extends to distributors who sell products to VTA-member retailers.

---

What Has NOT Changed

All youth-access and marketing restrictions remain fully enforceable, including:

• Alabama Code § 28-11-13 — Prohibits the sale of ENDS products to minors
• Alabama Code § 28-11-16(d) — Prohibits marketing that appeals to minors

This list is not exhaustive. Members should consult the statute and their legal counsel for full requirements.

---

Important Case Developments

• August 15, 2025: Circuit Court issued TRO blocking enforcement of Act 2025-403
• October 16, 2025: Court denied preliminary injunction but extended TRO pending appeal
• December 10, 2025: Alabama Supreme Court denied the State’s motion to stay TRO

Result: The TRO remains in effect throughout the appeal.

---

Key Takeaway

Alabama may not enforce its ENDS PMTA registry or U.S.-manufacturing requirements against covered parties while the appeal is pending, but all youth-access and marketing restrictions remain fully enforceable.

---

🔔 Member Alert: Virginia

Important Court Ruling Affecting Virginia Nicotine & Vapor Product Enforcement

Case Reference: NOVA Distro v. Miyares, Civil No. 3:25-cv-857 (E.D. Va.)
Applies To: Retailers and Distributors of Liquid Nicotine and Nicotine Vapor Products in Virginia

---

Summary

A federal court has temporarily blocked Virginia from enforcing key parts of its liquid nicotine and vapor product registry law. As a result, law enforcement officers within the Commonwealth cannot currently require products to be listed on the state directory or force products off the market based on FDA authorization status.

---

What This Means for Members — Right Now

✅ What You CAN Do (For Now)

• Continue selling liquid nicotine and vapor products without regard to Virginia’s product directory
• Operate without fear of state penalties, fines, or product removal based solely on FDA authorization status

---

❌ What Virginia CANNOT Do (For Now)

• Enforce the state nicotine/vapor product directory
• Require product removal or issue fines based on FDA authorization status
• Act as an FDA enforcement agency

---

What Has NOT Changed

Virginia continues to enforce all other tobacco and nicotine laws, including:

• Age-verification requirements
• Licensing
• Taxes
• Compliance inspections

This ruling does not legalize unlawful sales practices.

---

Key Takeaway

Virginia may regulate how nicotine products are sold—but, for now, it cannot force products off shelves by enforcing federal FDA authorization rules.

---

Important Reminder:

This court order is temporary, and the case is ongoing. Enforcement rules may change.