By Brian Coon, MA with Becky Shipkosky<\/p>\n
Illicit Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS)<\/p>\n
According to recent estimates, up to 86 percent of all e-cigarettes<\/a> on the U.S. market are illicit (Truth Initiative, 2024), meaning their ingredients and production are not subject to any health or safety oversight and do not have marketing<\/a> authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This may seem like a Wild West scenario, unprecedented in its lack of oversight, except it\u2019s not. The FDA didn\u2019t gain the authority to regulate cigarettes until 2009, and prior to that, nothing but a tobacco company\u2019s reputation enforced quality control (Berman, 2018).<\/p>\n Anonymous Vape Manufacturers<\/p>\n Now think about the vape products in the stores. If you\u2019ve ever purchased one, you most likely have no idea who manufactured it. (That\u2019s intentional for reasons we\u2019ll explore momentarily.) Reputational control is a non-factor for the anonymous-to-consumers companies behind most e-cigarettes sold in the U.S., which pack the finished products into unmarked or intentionally mislabeled boxes (Perrone, 2023). All manufacturers of illicit ENDS products do this, but some unknown portion of such factories are \u201cshadow\u201d entities, flying even under the Chinese government\u2019s radar (Tencent Net, 2026).<\/p>\n While many consumers are aware that inhaling nicotine aerosol is hazardous to their health, products manufactured without oversight can contain (and have contained<\/a>) immediately dangerous ingredients. And it\u2019s worth noting that the e-cigarette products in question are not sold legally in any market. It\u2019s not as if the manufacturers are following another country\u2019s health and safety standards. There simply are none. We know this because most of the illicit products in the U.S. market would be illegal in other countries based on nicotine content alone, including China, incidentally (Akpata, 2026; Chowdhury, 2022).<\/p>\n An Illicit Product\u2019s Journey to Consumers<\/p>\n An unauthorized ENDS product will most likely begin its life in Shenzhen, China, as about 90 percent of such products do (Mba & Mba, 2024). What happens next?<\/p>\n An exporter receives and palletizes the factory\u2019s master cases and arranges their passage on cargo ships. It\u2019s straightforwardly a smuggling operation. So, if we know this is happening, how is it allowed to continue? That is where the problem of U.S. regulation enters the picture. <\/p>\n Tech and Chemistry Outpace Regulation<\/p>\n The FDA has struggled to keep up with millions of e-cigarette applications. A fresh application is required for each new variation of a product, including flavor and device properties, and these applications can take two years or more to be approved. This is why just 39 of the over 6,000 distinct e-cigarette products on the U.S. market are actually FDA-approved (\u201cCombating Illicit Substances: DOJ Enforcement of Unauthorized E-Cigarettes,\u201d 2026).<\/p>\n Compliance and Enforcement<\/p>\n In 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has recently dedicated more resources to exactly the type of trade enforcement that catches shipments of illegal tobacco products. But despite five large, high-profile seizures in the first half of 2026, intercepting about 18 million devices (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2026), the market remains flooded for a few reasons:<\/p>\n ATF withdrawal: The Bureau of Alcohol<\/a>, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) has shifted its focus away from domestic tobacco enforcement at the behest of the Attorney General (\u201cCombating Illicit Substances: DOJ Enforcement of Unauthorized E-Cigarettes,\u201d 2026). In some ways, enforcement is a cat-and-mouse game. U.S. agencies devise new ways to catch illegal products, and then the exporters and brokers find new ways to bypass them.<\/p>\n Lack of Consensus<\/p>\n The federal and state agencies actively engaged in nicotine regulation enforcement represent a minimum of 154 distinct entities (four federal agencies plus three in each state). Courts and local governments have their hands in it as well, along with commercial payment processors. With hundreds of players, it\u2019s not hard to imagine how fragmented regulation and enforcement are. <\/p>\n At the time of writing, 21 state attorneys general have signed a petition pressuring the FDA to reverse its guidance to deprioritize enforcement of products with pending applications (Attorney General Tong Leads Coalition Urging FDA to Reverse Guidance, n.d.). Several of those states have bans or directory mandates that render many of those pending products illegal at the state level (Reyes, 2026), products that are also illegal at the federal level, and still must be smuggled to enter the U.S.<\/p>\n Despite this, manufacturers and industry groups are suing states to allow these pending products, interpreting the FDA\u2019s lack of action as implicit approval. Some courts are upholding the state bans and directory exclusions, while others are overturning them, creating a patchwork of increasingly complex laws across the states (Are State ENDS Directories Preempted? Federal Courts Are Split, 2025).<\/p>\n What Does This Mean for People in Recovery?<\/p>\n For those of us working in addiction<\/a> treatment, all this regulatory chaos presents a clinical problem. When roughly 9 in 10 vape products available have no health or safety oversight, we can\u2019t in good conscience<\/a> condone their use by anyone in our care. For that reason, we don\u2019t include vaping among cessation support options in our programs.<\/p>\n
\nProducts may pass through Indonesia or Vietnam to minimize customs scrutiny as they enter the U.S.
\nOnce the products arrive, customs brokers file fraudulent documents stating the shipment contains something innocuous, like plastic toys or LED flashlights.
\nWholesale buyers receive the products and sell them online or in bulk to retailers, with brick-and-mortar outlets comprising the majority.
\nLocal retailers\u2014some licensed to sell tobacco products, some not\u2014sell them to consumers, typically only accepting cash to avoid detection. <\/p>\n
\nSlow replacement: State and other federal agencies, as well as local police departments, are filling the gap left by the ATF withdrawal, but at a rate that varies widely across jurisdiction levels and locations.
\nInsufficient local enforcement: Enforcement has historically targeted online retailers, but brick-and-mortar shops sell the majority of illegal vape products (Todd, 2026).
\nMore products: Manufacturers simply increase production when enforcement increases because seizures lead to a supply deficit.
\nLoss tolerance: The products are so cheap to make that manufacturers, exporters, brokers, and retailers would still profit if half or more of their products were lost to customs seizure (Team, 2026).
\nTrans-shipping: Exporters take advantage of the lower tariffs or relatively lower scrutiny of U.S. trade agreements with other countries by routing shipments through intermediary ports to mask their origin (\u201cCTPAT Alert \u2013 Illegal Transshipping,\u201d 2025).<\/p>\n