US ITC Launches 337 Investigation To 16 US And Chinese Vape Companies

The US International Trade Commission has initiated a 337 investigation (337-TA-1486) into “disposable and other closed vape and their components”. The case was filed by Renault Tobacco and related companies in the United States, with additional materials provided. The respondent list includes 16 companies from multiple states in the United States and Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Zhuhai, and other places in China, and requests the issuance of general or limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders.

Quick overview of key points

1. The US ITC has initiated an investigation into specific disposable and enclosed vape devices and their components (337-TA-1486);
2. The complainant includes R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and related companies in the United States;
3. The charges are based on the PACT Act, state/local taste bans, state catalog requirements, and state/local consumption tax compliance issues;
4. The complainant requests a general exclusion order or a limited exclusion order, and requests a cease and desist order;
5. The list of respondents includes 16 companies from multiple states in the United States, as well as Hong Kong, Guangdong, Shenzhen, Zhuhai, and other places in China.

337 Investigation To 16 US And Chinese Vape Companies details

According to the official website of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), the ITC has voted to initiate a 337 investigation into “specific disposable and other closed electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) devices and their components,” with investigation number 337-TA-1486.
The ITC stated that this case is based on a complaint submitted by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, RAI Services Company, and Reynolds Marketing Services on January 13, 2026, with supplementary materials submitted on February 3, 2026.

The complaint (including supplements) claims that the respondent’s importation and sale of related products into the United States constitutes unfair competition methods and unfair practices, based on the following grounds:

1. The Prevention All Cigarette Smuggling Act;
2. State and/or local flavor bans;
3. State directory requirements;
4. And the threat or impact of non-compliance with state and/or local consumption tax regulations and causing damage or substantial harm to relevant industries in the United States.

The complainant requests ITC to issue a general exclusion order; Alternatively, as an alternative, issuing limited exclusion orders and requesting the issuance of cease and desist orders.

The disclosed respondents include vape companies from multiple states in the United States and 16 companies from Hong Kong, Guangdong, Shenzhen, Zhuhai and other places in China

• Savannah, Georgia, USA: D&A Distribution, LLC (Strictly E-cig)
• Buffalo, New York, USA: ECTO World LLC (Demand Vape); Magellan Technology Inc.
• Hong Kong, China: Geek Miracle (HK) Limited; iMiracle HK Limited
• Guangdong Qisitech Co., Ltd., Guangdong Province, China
• Zhuhai Qisitech Co., Ltd., Zhuhai, China
• Shenzhen, China: Heaven Gifts International Ltd; iMiracle (Shenzhen) Technology Co. Ltd.； Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd
• Agura Hills, California, USA: Headway Funding Inc. (Jewel Distribution)
• Bensonville, Illinois, USA: Midwest Goods Inc. (Midwest Distribution Illinois)
• Safield, Connecticut, USA: RZ Smoke Inc
• Punta Gorda, Florida, USA: Safa Goods, LLC
• Houston, Texas, USA: Texas Central Distribution LLC; Unishow USA, Inc.

ITC stated that filing (337-TA-1486) does not imply any ruling has been made on the substantive matter of the case.
The Chief Administrative Judge of ITC will assign the case to an Administrative Judge (ALJ), who will arrange and conduct an evidence hearing and make a preliminary ruling on whether there has been a violation of Section 337; This preliminary ruling can be reviewed by ITC. The ITC stated that it will make a final decision at the “earliest feasible time” and set a target date for completing the investigation within 45 days after filing the case.

Dank Smoke COO Ricky stated that these Chinese vape factories or manufacturers are actually owned by the same company’s owner.