The Rise and Controversy Surrounding Puff Bar

Sep.09.2022
The Rise and Controversy Surrounding Puff Bar
Puff Bar sells disposable e-cigarettes in various flavors containing synthetic nicotine, causing concern among public health officials.

Puff Bar is an online retailer offering various flavors of disposable e-cigarettes, including pink lemonade, tobacco, strawberry, and color (some of which light up when in use). These devices contain 5% or 50mg of nicotine salts and are about the size of a highlighter pen.


These devices have become increasingly popular in 2019. In some countries, the rise in popularity has been linked to marketing on social media platforms such as TikTok or Instagram, which utilize influencers to promote products. So far, these devices have done well because they contain synthetic nicotine.


However, in December of last year, New Jersey congresswoman Mikie Sherrill introduced the 2021 Nicotine Clearing Authorization Act, a bipartisan bill that grants the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory power over synthetic nicotine products, just like it does with tobacco-derived nicotine products. Congress passed the bill on March 11th, which means the future of synthetic nicotine is uncertain.


John Stein, the attorney general of North Carolina, has shifted his focus to Puff Bar after previously filing a lawsuit and reaching a $40 million settlement with Juul Labs.


Stan expressed concern that the trendy descriptions of Puff Bars' flavors could make them appealing to children. "We are actively investigating Puff Bar and other companies at all stages of the distribution chain, from manufacturers to retailers and everything in between, to ensure they are not profiting from children," he said. "Where I find illegal activity, I will not hesitate to take legal action.


Similar concerns worldwide


Recent headlines in the media report that Australia is increasingly concerned about the rise in the use of Puff Bar disposable products. Additionally, according to previous research and arguments from public health experts, a recent article published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research found that if electronic cigarette products had never existed, the teenagers currently using these products would turn to smoking instead.


Statement


This article is compiled from third-party information and is intended only for industry exchange and learning purposes.


This article does not necessarily reflect the views of 2FIRSTS, and 2FIRSTS cannot confirm the authenticity or accuracy of the content. The translation of this article is intended solely for industry exchange and research purposes.


Due to limitations in translation skills, the translated article may not accurately reflect the original text. Please refer to the original article for precise understanding.


2FIRSTS maintains full alignment with the Chinese government on all domestic, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and foreign affairs.


The copyright of the compiled information belongs to the original media and author. If there is any infringement, please contact us for deletion.



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.

Special Report | Altria Subsidiaries Sue FDA to Vacate 2021 PMTA Rule as Agency Moves to Speed Reviews
Special Report | Altria Subsidiaries Sue FDA to Vacate 2021 PMTA Rule as Agency Moves to Speed Reviews
2Firsts reviewed the original federal court complaint filed by Altria subsidiaries Helix Innovations and NJOY on Sept. 2 challenging FDA’s 2021 PMTA rule. The lawsuit questions whether FDA’s review process complies with the Tobacco Control Act’s 180-day timeline, even as the agency moves to accelerate PMTA reviews and issues more marketing orders. Drawing on the complaint, FDA records, government audits and recent court rulings, 2Firsts examines the legal arguments, supporting evidence and potential implications for the U.S. tobacco review system.
Regulations
Sep.03
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
Why AIRSCREAM Built its European Production Hub for Regulated Market Growth
Why AIRSCREAM Built its European Production Hub for Regulated Market Growth
AIRSCREAM’s production hub in the Czech Republic brings nicotine pouch manufacturing, e-liquid bottling, product documentation, warehousing and international logistics into one operation, giving brands and commercial partners a practical platform from which to launch, expand and enter new markets.
Market
Sep.16 by 2Firsts Perspectives
PMI Launches Fourth IQOS Convenience-Store Discount of 2026 for Black Friday in Japan, Cutting ILUMA i ONE to About $19 After Ploom AURA Fell to About $9
PMI Launches Fourth IQOS Convenience-Store Discount of 2026 for Black Friday in Japan, Cutting ILUMA i ONE to About $19 After Ploom AURA Fell to About $9
Philip Morris Japan launched its fourth confirmed nationwide convenience-store discount campaign for IQOS ILUMA i devices in 2026 on October 26, cutting three models by as much as ¥2,000, or about $12.70. The campaign began one day after JT ended a promotion that reduced Ploom AURA to ¥1,480, or about $9.40. JT says Ploom's share of Japan's heated-products category rose from 10.9% in January 2024 to 18.3% in June 2026, a gain of 7.4 percentage points, while PMI says IQOS still held about 68% category share in the third quarter. At the same time, Japan's two-stage heated-tobacco tax adjustment has pushed stick prices higher, leaving device discounts as an increasingly important tool for lowering the upfront cost of customer acquisition.
Market
Oct.28
Reynolds Seeks to Join Altria Lawsuit Challenging FDA PMTA Rule and Calculation of 180-Day Deadline
Reynolds Seeks to Join Altria Lawsuit Challenging FDA PMTA Rule and Calculation of 180-Day Deadline
Three R.J. Reynolds companies are seeking to intervene in a lawsuit filed by Altria subsidiaries Helix Innovations and NJOY challenging the FDA's 2021 PMTA final rule. The companies dispute how the agency uses Acceptance and Filing reviews and completeness determinations to establish when the Tobacco Control Act's 180-day decision period begins. Reynolds has also linked prolonged PMTA reviews to competition from unauthorized vaping products. The FDA, meanwhile, has been accelerating reviews and reducing its backlog.
Sep.14
JUUL2 Sued Within a Week of FDA Authorization as AJ Marketing Alleges Infringement of Programmable Vape Patent
JUUL2 Sued Within a Week of FDA Authorization as AJ Marketing Alleges Infringement of Programmable Vape Patent
Less than a week after JUUL2 received U.S. FDA marketing authorization on August 28, 2026, JUUL Labs was sued for patent infringement in federal court in Delaware. AJ Marketing LLC filed the complaint on September 3, alleging that both JUUL 1 and JUUL2 infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,851,068 B2. The patent covers aspects of programmable electronic vaporization devices, including controls over dose delivery, usage frequency and operating parameters. The plaintiff is seeking reasonable royalties and ongoing royalties tied to the remaining life of the patent. JUUL has not yet publicly responded to the case.
Sep.10