New Zealand Government Neglects E-Liquid Regulation, Thousands of Retailers at Risk

Regulations by 2FIRSTS.ai
Apr.10.2024
New Zealand Government Neglects E-Liquid Regulation, Thousands of Retailers at Risk
Thousands of e-liquid retailers in New Zealand may escape legal consequences due to lack of government oversight.

According to the New Zealand media nzdoctor on April 10, if the New Zealand government continues to turn a blind eye and invest in the wrong areas, thousands of e-liquid retailers may potentially operate outside the law. Letitia Harding, CEO of the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation NZ, stated that the news of Health Ministry layoffs was regrettable but not surprising.

 

According to our understanding, they are not the ones enforcing the law on the thousands of e-liquid retailers. What we hope to see is the government shifting its focus towards investing in this area.

 

A survey conducted last year revealed that the Department of Health's e-liquid Regulatory Authority (VRA) has only one full-time employee, while the regulatory manager works only 10 hours per week, equivalent to a total of three-and-a-half full-time employees.

 

The foundation visited an e-liquid retailer last week and observed many non-compliant products. Hardin stated that the government has not committed to limiting the number of specialist e-liquid retailers (SVRs), of which there are currently 1530, so there is a need for continued investment in e-liquid compliance.

 

They need to invest in people who conduct door-to-door product inspections to ensure all products meet regulatory requirements. Perhaps this task should not fall on the Department of Health, but instead be handled by the Department of Legal Affairs, similar to how alcohol selling venues are regulated. Without this investment, our young people will continue to be addicted to e-cigarettes.

 

According to information provided to the foundation under the Official Information Act (OIA), the e-liquid regulatory authority has initiated an investigation into a company that operates two e-liquid websites for failing to comply with new e-liquid laws. This investigation comes after examining 29 websites to ensure compliance with safety requirements, including the company's failure to include removable batteries with products, not meeting nicotine strength labeling requirements, and not installing child safety mechanisms.

 

In order to protect the company's right to a fair trial, the Health Department has not disclosed the name and website domain of the company. The department has confirmed that no fines have been issued to date, but stated that "violations are not necessarily punishable offenses" in this case.

 

We welcome news tips, article submissions, interview requests, or comments on this piece.

Please contact us at info@2firsts.com, or reach out to Alan Zhao, CEO of 2Firsts, on LinkedIn


Notice

1.  This article is intended solely for professional research purposes related to industry, technology, and policy. Any references to brands or products are made purely for objective description and do not constitute any form of endorsement, recommendation, or promotion by 2Firsts.

2.  The use of nicotine-containing products — including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouchand heated tobacco products — carries significant health risks. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.

3.  This article is not intended to serve as the basis for any investment decisions or financial advice. 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any inaccuracies or errors in the content.

4.  Access to this article is strictly prohibited for individuals below the legal age in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright

 

This article is either an original work created by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with proper attribution. All copyrights and usage rights belong to 2Firsts or the original content provider. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other form of unauthorized use by any individual or organization is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally accountable.

For copyright-related inquiries, please contact: info@2firsts.com

 

AI Assistance Disclaimer

 

This article may have been enhanced using AI tools to improve translation and editorial efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, inaccuracies may occur. Readers are encouraged to refer to the cited sources for the most accurate information.

We welcome any corrections or feedback. Please contact us at: info@2firsts.com

Australia’s Victoria Steps Up Illegal Tobacco Enforcement With Store Closures and Penalties of Up to A$2.5 Million
Australia’s Victoria Steps Up Illegal Tobacco Enforcement With Store Closures and Penalties of Up to A$2.5 Million
Australia’s state of Victoria has activated new powers allowing Tobacco Licensing Victoria and police to shut premises suspected of selling, supplying or possessing illicit tobacco for up to 90 days. Longer closures can be ordered by a magistrates’ court. Businesses subject to closure orders must generally cease all trading and will be placed on a public list. Breaching a closure order can carry penalties of up to A$2.5 million and 20 years in prison.
Sep.10
UK-Listed Consumer Goods Group Supreme Sees Vape Duty as Potential Consolidation Opportunity, Holds FY27 Outlook
UK-Listed Consumer Goods Group Supreme Sees Vape Duty as Potential Consolidation Opportunity, Holds FY27 Outlook
UK-listed consumer goods group Supreme plc says it continues to expect FY27 trading to meet market expectations as the Vaping Products Duty takes effect on October 1, while maintaining a comparatively positive view of the new tax and compliance regime. Supreme has said the framework could increase compliance complexity for smaller operators and contribute to market consolidation, while its manufacturing, compliance and distribution scale may allow it to gain share. Its 88Vape brand will retain its value positioning.
Sep.18
Reynolds Puts Nearly 183,000 U.S. Contracted Outlets Under Age-Verification Rules, Covering 94% of Volume — Can It Shift an Unauthorized Vape Market?
Reynolds Puts Nearly 183,000 U.S. Contracted Outlets Under Age-Verification Rules, Covering 94% of Volume — Can It Shift an Unauthorized Vape Market?
Reynolds American says nearly 183,000 U.S. retail outlets are under contract, with its Retail Marketing Plan Contract covering about 94% of company volume and requiring point-of-sale age verification. The company combines those contracts with We Card, TruAge, NACS-linked infrastructure and POS integration, while enhanced Vuse Pro retail rules add ID scanning, purchase limits and stronger underage-sales accountability. The initial Vuse Pro rollout targets about 50,000 stores. The system is taking shape as unauthorized vapor products remain dominant in parts of the U.S. market: a 2026 study estimated they accounted for 69.4% of tracked brick-and-mortar e-cigarette dollar sales in December 2025.
Special Report
Oct.15
UK Directors Banned After 352,688 Vapes Imported From China Were Misdeclared as Medical Nebulizers in £15 Million Tax Case
UK Directors Banned After 352,688 Vapes Imported From China Were Misdeclared as Medical Nebulizers in £15 Million Tax Case
The UK Insolvency Service said YSK Enterprises imported large quantities of vapes from China in 2023, with a shipment addressed to the company declared as medical nebulizers before Border Force found 352,688 vaping products. HMRC calculated nearly £15 million ($20.3 million) in unpaid VAT and customs duty, alongside about £437,000 in corporation tax. Two directors were disqualified for nine years. The case predates the UK's Vaping Products Duty, which will introduce vape-specific excise and duty-stamp requirements from October 2026.
Regulations
Sep.11
U.S. Ninth Circuit Upholds FDA Denial of MH Global’s Flavored Vape PMTA Applications
U.S. Ninth Circuit Upholds FDA Denial of MH Global’s Flavored Vape PMTA Applications
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the FDA’s denial of MH Global LLC’s applications to market flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). The court ruled that FDA’s comparative-efficacy framework, which requires applicants to show that flavored products provide greater cessation or switching benefits than tobacco-flavored alternatives, is consistent with the Tobacco Control Act’s “appropriate for the protection of the public health” standard. The court also found that FDA was not required to establish the framework through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Aug.26
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
According to VitalLaw on August 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated an FDA marketing denial order (MDO) against NicQuid LLC, ruling that the agency’s comparative-efficacy standard for electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) applications had become a substantive rule requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court did not reject FDA’s authority to compare the public health benefits and risks of flavored vapes, but held that the agency could not establish a broadly binding standard through informal adjudications. The case was remanded to FDA for further proceedings.
Aug.28