Texas Vape Industry Sue State Government Ban of Sell Chinese E-liquid

Several American vape distributors and retailers are suing to prevent Texas from enforcing a new law that prohibits the sale or marketing of vape e-liquid products containing ingredients produced in China or countries listed as “foreign adversary” by the US Secretary of Commerce. The plaintiff claims that the law violates the “Foreign Trade Clause” of the US Constitution and has issues such as almost unverifiable traceability of raw materials and forced scrapping of inventory.

Quick overview of key points
1. Plaintiff: ECIGRUSA LLC（Worldwide Vape Distribution）、Addison Vapor LLC（Artisan Vapor & CBD Addison）、AF Vapor LLC（Artisan Vapor & CBD Dallas）、Smoke Scene Lubbock LLC.
2. Defendant: Kelly Hancock, Acting Auditor General of Texas.
3. Law involved: Senate Bill SB 2024, signed in July 2025 and effective on September 1, 2025.
4. Core restriction: Selling or marketing vape products containing (all or part of) e-liquid produced in China or “foreign adversary” countries will constitute a crime.
The plaintiff’s claim is that state law intervenes in foreign trade beyond its authority, is discriminatory, and is suspected of restricting advertising based on factual statements (First Amendment).
5. Industry impact: The plaintiff claims that the 70 days prior to the effective date were insufficient to rebuild the supply chain, resulting in unsold inventory, customer loss, and being sued by law enforcement.

According to Law360, multiple vape distributors and retailers in Texas have filed lawsuits to prevent the state from enforcing a new law that restricts e-liquids from “China and other countries identified as adversaries of the United States”. The plaintiff is suing Kelly Hancock, the acting auditor general of Texas, in this case, claiming that the relevant state laws are unconstitutional because trade with foreign countries should be uniformly regulated by the US Congress.
This case challenges a provision in the Texas Senate Bill SB 2024, which was signed into law in July 2025 and came into effect on September 1, 2025.
The terms stipulate that if the e-liquid used in vape products is entirely or partially manufactured in China, or manufactured, sold, or marketed in a country designated as a “foreign adversary” by the US Secretary of Commerce, it will constitute a crime. The original complaint states that the relevant “foreign adversaries” countries include Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

Reference another ours article: Texas Vape Law: Banning The Sale Of Vape Products From China

The plaintiffs include ECIGRUSA LLC (operating Worldwide Vapor Distribution), Addison Vapor LLC (operating Artisan Vapor&CBD Addison), AF Vapor LLC (operating Artisan Vapor&CBD Dallas), and Smoke Scene Lubbock LLC.
The lawsuit points out that modern vapes were first invented in China, and now almost all devices and a considerable amount of e-liquid come from China; Only 70 days from the signing of the bill to its implementation are far from enough for companies to “completely replace their supplier networks” for compliant operations.
The company also stated that due to the implementation of the bill, their inventory purchased before the bill was signed has reached the level of “hundreds of thousands of dollars” that cannot be sold, and has suffered customer loss, even facing prosecution from state law enforcement agencies.
In addition, the lawsuit emphasizes that even if e-liquid is not produced in China or the aforementioned “rival countries”, e-liquid is often composed of multiple raw materials, and companies may find it difficult to verify the source of each raw material in practical operations; According to the literal meaning of the terms, even if only a single component comes from a restricted country, related sales may trigger criminal liability.
In terms of legal claims, the plaintiff claims that the law falls under state-level overreach regulations in the field of foreign trade within the framework of the Foreign Commerce Clause, which may lead to conflicts in foreign commercial affairs and weaken the federal government’s ability to speak with one voice in foreign affairs.
The plaintiff also claims that the law is “superficially discriminatory” and argues that its criminalization of advertising behavior may touch upon the First Amendment’s protection of commercial speech; Meanwhile, the lawsuit claims that the law does not also prohibit other foreign manufactured tobacco products (such as cigarettes).

Reference: Vape Sellers Say Texas’ China Liquid Ban Is Unconstitutional – Law360