Malaysia's High Court Allows Lawsuit Against Health Minister on Vape Liquid

Aug.15.2023
Malaysia's High Court Allows Lawsuit Against Health Minister on Vape Liquid
The Malaysian High Court allows lawsuit against Health Minister and government over e-cigarette sales and provision to children.

According to the Malay Mail on August 14th, the High Court of Malaysia has granted three civil society organizations the permission to proceed with their lawsuit against Health Minister Zaliha Mustafa and the Malaysian government for failing to curb the sale of e-cigarette liquid and the provision of e-cigarette gel to children.

 

In a lawsuit filed as early as June 30th, civil society groups are urging the court to overturn the decision made by the Minister of Health to remove e-cigarette liquids and e-cigarette gels from the list of toxic substances, or effectively reinstate regulation of such products.

 

On the morning of August 14th, Justice Datuk Wan Ahmad Fadzlin Wan Chik presided over and approved the judicial review applications from the Malaysian Tobacco Control Council, Malaysian Green Lungs Association, and Children's Voice Private Limited Company.

 

Three civil society groups' lawyer Edmund Bon told the Malay Mail that the High Court has also heard applications from three civil society groups requesting a temporary stay on the Health Minister's directive issued on March 31 to remove e-cigarettes or liquids and gels used in e-cigarettes from the "poisonous substances" category.

 

These three civil society groups are calling for the temporary inclusion of e-liquid and e-cigarette gel in the list of toxins, in order to prevent the open legal sale of such products to children until the litigation is resolved.

 

According to written opinions, Bon believes it is necessary to temporarily suspend the distribution of free e-cigarette liquid and e-cigarette gel due to the potential health risks they pose to children, as well as the increase in fatalities caused by lung injuries associated with e-cigarette use, and the subsequent rise in medical costs.

 

Bon further emphasized that the lack of regulation on e-liquid means that the nicotine content in such products is currently unregulated, with any level currently being permitted by law.

 

Previously, a civil organization claimed that the removal of e-cigarette liquid from the list of toxic substances was done in order for the government to tax e-cigarettes and e-cigarette liquids containing nicotine. The organization pointed out that the Ministry of Finance has imposed a consumption tax on e-cigarettes and e-cigarette liquids containing nicotine, starting from April 1, with a tariff of 40 Malaysian Ringgit (63 Chinese Yuan) per milliliter. Bon believes that public health should take precedence over taxation.

 

On August 14th, Senior Federal Counsel Ahmed Hanif Hanbali, representing the government and the health minister, confirmed to the Malay Mail that the Attorney General does not object to this permission, and the High Court has also approved the permit today. It is reported that the High Court will decide on September 5th whether to approve the temporary suspension sought by three civil society organizations.

 

References:

 

Lawsuit Against Malaysia’s Health Minister Over Vape Liquid Permitted to Move Forward by Court

 


Disclaimer

This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.

Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.

The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.

This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright Notice

This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.

No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.

For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.

 

AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice

Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.

Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.

Smoore Seeks to Toss CCELL Price-Fixing Claim as Court Weighs Vertical Distribution Versus Horizontal Conspiracy
Smoore Seeks to Toss CCELL Price-Fixing Claim as Court Weighs Vertical Distribution Versus Horizontal Conspiracy
Smoore and four authorized U.S. CCELL distributors are asking a California federal court to permanently dismiss a core antitrust claim brought by direct purchasers. Plaintiffs allege that Smoore coordinated minimum wholesale prices, customer allocation and limits on price competition among distributors, amounting to a per se unlawful horizontal conspiracy. The defendants say the alleged conduct reflects ordinary vertical relationships between a manufacturer and its distributors. The court previously dismissed a similar claim, and the latest dispute centers on whether the second amended complaint adds sufficient facts to establish a horizontal agreement.
Sep.14
UK HMRC Plans 30,000 Retail Enforcement Actions as Illegal Tobacco and Vape Sellers Face Tougher Crackdown
UK HMRC Plans 30,000 Retail Enforcement Actions as Illegal Tobacco and Vape Sellers Face Tougher Crackdown
The UK government has announced that HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) will carry out more than 30,000 interventions targeting businesses and retail premises during the 2026-2027 financial year. The actions will focus on tax fraud, illegal goods sales and businesses involved in unlawful activities through retail channels. The government said illegal tobacco and illegal vape sales remain areas of concern. The move shows that UK enforcement against illegal nicotine products is expanding from import and supply channels toward retail-level oversight, alongside the upcoming introduction of the Vaping Products Duty.
Jul.24
Ispire Q4 Revenue Rebounds 33% but Full-Year Sales Still Fall 25% as FY2027 Focus Shifts to Malaysia Manufacturing, ODM, Nicotine Pouches and Age Verification
Ispire Q4 Revenue Rebounds 33% but Full-Year Sales Still Fall 25% as FY2027 Focus Shifts to Malaysia Manufacturing, ODM, Nicotine Pouches and Age Verification
Ispire Technology reported FY2026 revenue of about $96 million, down 24.7% year over year, as U.S. cannabis-vapor hardware and European e-cigarette sales declined by $17.4 million and $12.7 million, respectively. Fourth-quarter revenue rose 32.5% to $26.7 million, while quarterly gross margin fell to 6.3%. For FY2027, the company is prioritizing Malaysia manufacturing and vapor ODM while continuing to develop nicotine pouches, IKE Tech age-verification technology and G-Mesh licensing. Ispire has not separately disclosed the revenue or profit contribution of those newer businesses.
Regulations
Sep.17 by 2Firsts Perspectives
Philippines BIR Steps Up Illicit Vape Enforcement Ahead of Christmas Shopping
Philippines BIR Steps Up Illicit Vape Enforcement Ahead of Christmas Shopping
The Philippines’ Bureau of Internal Revenue is intensifying enforcement against illicit vape and tobacco products ahead of the Christmas shopping season, directing regional and enforcement offices to strengthen monitoring of production sites, warehouses, distribution channels and retail outlets. The BIR destroyed 240,550 illicit vape products in August with an estimated tax liability of about PHP1.53 billion. A nationwide tax-compliance operation in July also inspected 3,590 businesses involved in tobacco and vapor products.
Regulations
Sep.17 by 2Firsts Perspectives
From Nicotine Pouches to Soft Candy Forms: China Tobacco Hubei explores adjustable-release oral nicotine products
From Nicotine Pouches to Soft Candy Forms: China Tobacco Hubei explores adjustable-release oral nicotine products
China-based China Tobacco Hubei Industrial Co., Ltd. has filed a patent application covering an oral nicotine product and its preparation method. The patent proposes a soft candy-shaped oral nicotine product containing nicotine ingredients, gelling agents, sweeteners and alkaline pH regulators. Through formulation adjustments and homogeneous or dual-layer structures, the technology aims to achieve different nicotine release profiles. The filing reflects exploration of new oral nicotine product formats and controlled nicotine delivery approaches.
Aug.06
STIIIZY Redesign Fails to Escape PAX Labs Patent Import Ban as Section 337 Case Also Involves China ALD
STIIIZY Redesign Fails to Escape PAX Labs Patent Import Ban as Section 337 Case Also Involves China ALD
U.S. Customs and Border Protection ruled that STIIIZY had not shown that the redesigned cannabis-vape products covered by its latest request fall outside an ITC limited exclusion order tied to PAX Labs patents. CBP accepted some of STIIIZY’s claim-construction and non-infringement arguments, but the company did not address two additional claims in the same patent. Earlier STIIIZY redesigned cartridges and certain associated components imported with them had received separate CBP clearance.
Sep.16