By Timothy S. Donahue

Key points:

• Vape manufacturers and sellers have filed a federal lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s Session Law 2024-31, arguing it oversteps state authority and conflicts with federal regulations.
• The law mandates that only e-cigarette products with FDA marketing authorization can be sold in the state, potentially removing most products from the market by June 29, 2025.
• Plaintiffs are requesting a stay on the law’s enforcement, citing potential harm to businesses and consumers who rely on these products as alternatives to traditional cigarettes.

On May 1, 2025, North Carolina’s Session Law 2024-31 (HB 900) came into effect, imposing strict regulations on the sale of e-cigarette products within the state.

The law requires that only products with marketing authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration be sold, with a compliance directory published by the North Carolina Department of Revenue listing approved products.

Retailers were given a 60-day grace period, ending June 29, 2025, to comply by removing non-listed products from their shelves.

In response, the Vapor Technology Association (VTA), along with several manufacturers, retailers, and an individual consumer, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

The plaintiffs argue that the state law is preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which grants exclusive enforcement authority to the FDA. The VTA and other plaintiffs contend that North Carolina’s law unlawfully attempts to enforce federal regulations at the state level, violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Additionally, the lawsuit claims that the law’s distinction between tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine products infringes upon the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The plaintiffs are seeking a stay on the law’s enforcement, arguing that it would cause significant economic harm to businesses and limit access to products that some consumers use as alternatives to combustible cigarettes.

As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the regulation of e-cigarette products and the balance of state and federal authority in public health matters.