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.

California Lawmakers Pass Disposable Nicotine Vape Ban, With Sales Prohibition Set for 2028
California Lawmakers Pass Disposable Nicotine Vape Ban, With Sales Prohibition Set for 2028
According to CBS Los Angeles on August 27, 2026, California lawmakers have passed Assembly Bill 762, which would phase out disposable, battery-embedded nicotine vapes in the state. If signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, manufacturing and importation of the covered products would be prohibited beginning January 1, 2027, followed by a sales ban on January 1, 2028. Driven primarily by concerns over electronic waste, lithium-battery fires and environmental pollution, the legislation would further shift California’s legal vape market toward rechargeable, refillable or replaceable-pod devices.
Aug.28
Pennsylvania Vape Directory Law Survives Court Challenge From Nova Distro and Others Amid Similar Rulings Across States
Pennsylvania Vape Directory Law Survives Court Challenge From Nova Distro and Others Amid Similar Rulings Across States
A U.S. federal court upheld Pennsylvania's vape directory law on October 14, rejecting a challenge brought by Nova Distro, 101 Distributors and companies operating Tobacco Hut retail stores. Court records show that vaping accounts for about 60% of Tobacco Hut's profits and that the chain held approximately $2 million in inventory potentially subject to seizure under the law as of June 2. Pennsylvania began enforcement on October 19. The ruling follows similar appellate decisions in other states, even as new research shows that unlisted vaping products continue to account for substantial sales in states with established directories.
Regulations
Oct.22
Product | DOJO Launches 0+6ml BLAST7K Fresh in UK in September, Retaining 2+8ml Pod Compatibility Ahead of October Per-Milliliter Vaping Duty
Product | DOJO Launches 0+6ml BLAST7K Fresh in UK in September, Retaining 2+8ml Pod Compatibility Ahead of October Per-Milliliter Vaping Duty
DOJO officially launched the BLAST7K Fresh on September 17, 2026, introducing a UK-market prefilled pod product with 6ml of e-liquid and a manufacturer-rated capacity of up to 7,000 puffs. The device features a 1000mAh rechargeable battery, the INSTA-JUICED structure and COREX BLAST dual-mesh technology, while retaining compatibility with existing BLAST pods. The launch comes less than two weeks before the UK's Vaping Products Duty takes effect on October 1. At the new duty rate, 6ml of vaping liquid would correspond to £1.32 in VPD. DOJO has not stated that the product's 6ml format was designed in response to the new duty.
Sep.20
Elf Bar Vape Explosion and Amputation Claim Spurs Coverage Suit, U.S. Insurer MUSIC Seeks Ruling It Owes No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Distributor i5
Elf Bar Vape Explosion and Amputation Claim Spurs Coverage Suit, U.S. Insurer MUSIC Seeks Ruling It Owes No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Distributor i5
Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company has asked a federal court in Washington to declare that it has no duty to defend or indemnify vape distributor i5 Distribution in a product liability case involving an Elf Bar BC5000. The plaintiff alleges that the disposable vape caught fire and exploded in his pocket, causing severe burns and ultimately requiring an above-the-knee amputation of his left leg. MUSIC is relying on a tobacco, nicotine or nicotine replacement products exclusion and a premises limitation endorsement. The court has not ruled on the coverage dispute.
News
Sep.10
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
Juul Sublicense Reshapes Vuse Alto Patent Bill as Court Ends R.J. Reynolds’ 5.25% Royalty Obligation to Altria
Juul Sublicense Reshapes Vuse Alto Patent Bill as Court Ends R.J. Reynolds’ 5.25% Royalty Obligation to Altria
According to Law360 on August 31, 2026, a federal judge in North Carolina ruled that a patent sublicense between R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and Juul Labs Inc. relieves Reynolds of its obligation to continue paying royalties to Altria Client Services LLC over Vuse Alto. A jury had previously found that Vuse Alto infringed three Altria patents and awarded approximately $95.2 million in past damages, after which Reynolds was ordered to pay an ongoing royalty equal to 5.25% of positive net sales. The new ruling finds that a valid sublicense can eliminate future infringement, potentially ending what Altria described as hundreds of millions of dollars in future royalties.
Sep.01