Vape Registry Laws Upheld by Two Federal Appeals Courts

Two federal appeals courts handed state regulators a significant win inside of a single week, and the consequences land squarely on e-liquid brands and the distributors who stock them. On July 30 the Fourth Circuit upheld North Carolina's vape directory law in Vapor Technology Association v. Wooten. Days later the Eighth Circuit cleared Iowa to begin enforcing its own registry statute. Taken together, the two decisions signal that state product directories are no longer an experiment brands can wait out. In a growing share of the U.S. market, the state list — not the FDA's enforcement posture — is now the practical gatekeeper for shelf access.

The Fourth Circuit Sides With North Carolina

North Carolina's 2024 statute requires manufacturers to certify annually to the state Department of Revenue that each vapor product either holds an FDA marketing authorization, was on the market by August 8, 2016 with a timely-filed premarket tobacco product application still pending, or qualifies under a narrow exemption for superficial product changes. Products that do not certify come off the state list, and off the shelf.

The Vapor Technology Association, joined by manufacturer Wages and White Lion Investments, retailers AMV Holdings and Bright Leaf Vendors, and an individual vaper, argued the law was preempted because it turns a state revenue agency into an enforcer of the federal Tobacco Control Act. A divided panel disagreed. Writing for the majority, Judge Thacker affirmed the district court's refusal to enjoin the law, holding the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on preemption. Judge Agee concurred; Judge Quattlebaum dissented. Twenty-eight state attorneys general filed in support of North Carolina — a strong signal of how broadly states view this authority.

The Eighth Circuit Clears Iowa to Enforce

Iowa's House File 2677 had been frozen by a preliminary injunction since shortly after passage. The Eighth Circuit vacated it. Judge L. Steven Grasz wrote that the Tobacco Control Act preserves substantial state authority over the sale, distribution, and possession of tobacco products, even as it bars states from setting their own product standards or premarket review requirements. The panel found the plaintiffs had standing but were unlikely to succeed on the merits. Iowa began enforcing the registration requirement in early August. The litigation continues, but the practical restraint on the state is gone.

Pennsylvania Is the Next Test Case

Pennsylvania's Act 57 of 2025 made it the fourteenth state to adopt a PMTA registry regime. It requires manufacturers of nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes to obtain state certification, and directs the Attorney General to publish a public directory listing approved manufacturers, product names, categories, and flavors. Products left off the directory can eventually be seized. Retailers are separately required to source from licensed wholesalers, with product obtained outside that channel subject to seizure.

In MMA Group 1 Inc. v. Sunday, filed in May by operators of dozens of Tobacco Hut stores and distributor 101 Distributors, plaintiffs asked Judge Julia K. Munley to block the law. On August 4 the court signaled the challenge faces an uphill climb, directing the plaintiffs to explain how their case differs from the Fourth and Eighth Circuit precedents. Munley converted the injunction request into cross-motions for summary judgment; opposition briefs are due August 21 with replies August 28. Pennsylvania was one of the 28 states backing North Carolina.

Why This Matters More Than a Flavor Ban

None of these statutes is technically a flavor ban. The practical effect can be close to one. Eligibility for a state directory turns heavily on federal authorization status, and the FDA has authorized very few products in flavors other than tobacco or menthol. A brand with a deep fruit or dessert portfolio may find that its catalog thins dramatically at the state line, not because a legislature banned the category, but because the certification math does not work.

That reframes the compliance question for wholesale buyers. Purchase decisions increasingly depend on whether a supplier can document its regulatory position product by product, state by state — application numbers, submission dates, authorization status, and the formulation records that back them up. Directories are updated on state schedules, and a product removed from a list becomes contraband inventory almost overnight.

What Brands and Distributors Should Do Now

Build a state-by-state matrix of every SKU you sell, mapped to its certification status and renewal date. Most registry states require annual re-certification, and missed deadlines are the most common way a compliant product falls off a list. Confirm who owns the filing obligation in your supply chain — in most statutes it sits with the manufacturer, not the retailer, but the retailer bears the seizure risk.

Then make sure the underlying records exist. Certification filings, state inquiries, and any downstream challenge all depend on being able to produce a defensible paper trail: the exact formulation tied to a given SKU, batch and lot records, ingredient specifications and supplier documentation, and a version history showing that what shipped in 2026 matches what was described in the application. Brands that treat this as an annual scramble tend to lose products they could have kept.

Manufacturing Built for a Directory Market

Nova Manufacturing is a U.S. contract manufacturer of e-liquid built for exactly this environment. We work from standardized, version-controlled formulations, produce under GMP-quality controls, and issue batch documentation with every production run — so that when a state asks what is in a product and whether it matches the filing, the answer is already on file. For brands and distributors navigating registry deadlines, private label programs, or a move to domestic production, we can help you get the manufacturing side documented and defensible. Get in touch to talk through your portfolio and production requirements.