Vape sellers sue to block Texas law banning e-liquids from China and other “foreign adversaries”

Key Points

• Plaintiffs: ECIGRUSA LLC (Worldwide Vape Distribution), Addison Vapor LLC, AF Vapor LLC, Smoke Scene Lubbock LLC.
• Defendant: Texas acting Comptroller Kelly Hancock.
• Challenged law: Provision in SB 2024, signed in July 2025 and effective Sept. 1, 2025.
• Ban scope: E-liquids made wholly or partly in China or in “foreign adversary” countries (including Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia).
• Claims: Foreign Commerce Clause preemption, facial discrimination, and First Amendment concerns related to advertising.
• Alleged impact: Insufficient 70-day transition period, stranded inventory, customer losses, and enforcement/prosecution risk.

2Firsts, Feb. 3, 2026

Law360 reports that a group of vape distributors and retailers has filed suit seeking to block Texas from enforcing a new law that makes it a crime to sell or market vape products containing e-liquids made wholly or partly in China or in countries designated as “foreign adversaries” by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

The plaintiffs sued Texas acting Comptroller of Public Accounts Kelly Hancock, arguing that the Foreign Commerce Clause reserves regulation of trade with foreign nations to Congress alone. 

They contend the state measure risks conflicts and undermines the federal government’s ability to “speak with one voice” in foreign commercial affairs.

The lawsuit targets a provision of Senate Bill 2024, signed into law in July 2025 and effective Sept. 1, 2025. Under the provision, it is a crime to sell or market a vape product containing e-liquid made in whole or in part in China or in a country designated as a foreign adversary, including Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Russia.

Plaintiffs include ECIGRUSA LLC (Worldwide Vape Distribution), Addison Vapor LLC (Artisan Vapor & CBD Addison), AF Vapor LLC (Artisan Vapor & CBD Dallas), and Smoke Scene Lubbock LLC. 

They argue that the 70-day window between signing and the effective date was not enough time to overhaul supplier networks, leaving them with hundreds of thousands of dollars in pre-law inventory they can no longer sell. They also claim they have already lost customers and faced enforcement actions.

The complaint further argues that e-liquids contain numerous ingredients, making it difficult—sometimes impossible—to verify the origin of every component; under the statute’s plain language, even one ingredient from a prohibited country could trigger criminal liability. 

The plaintiffs also allege the law is facially discriminatory and raises First Amendment concerns by criminalizing advertising based on factual representations, while not banning other foreign-made tobacco products.

The case is ECIGRUSA LLC et al. v. Hancock, No. 3:26-cv-00254, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Image source: Law360