Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Pennsylvania’s New ENDS Directory Law Raises the Bar for Market Access

By Azim Chowdhury & Kaitlyn Johnson on March 31, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Pennsylvania has joined the growing group of states that condition ENDS sales on federal PMTA status. Enacted as Act 57 of 2025, House Bill 1425 adds Section 206-I to The Fiscal Code and directs the Pennsylvania Attorney General to maintain a directory of electronic cigarettes that may be sold in the Commonwealth. The law ties state market access to federal authorization status, but it does so through a fixed September 9, 2020 PMTA cutoff, recurring fees, a surety bond requirement, and a broad brand-family concept that will materially increase compliance costs for many manufacturers.

At the federal level, the PMTA pathway under Section 910 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, requires the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine whether marketing a new tobacco product would be appropriate for the protection of the public health. For ENDS products, that process has yielded only a relatively small set of marketing granted orders and has generated years of litigation over marketing denial orders and review standards. States have responded by adopting directory and registry laws intended to keep products with no recognizable federal pathway off store shelves. Pennsylvania’s law fits squarely within that trend, but its scope and implementation details warrant close attention.

Scope, Definitions, and Product Eligibility

The statute reaches more broadly than the phrase “electronic cigarettes that contain nicotine” might imply. Section 202-I applies not only to products labeled, advertised, or marketed as containing nicotine, and to products that the Department of Revenue or the Attorney General determine contain nicotine, but also to products sold under the same brand name as a product determined to contain nicotine. Manufacturers, therefore, should not assume that nicotine-free products, including products formulated with nicotine analogs instead of nicotine, fall outside the law merely because they do not contain nicotine. Although those non-nicotine products are not subject to Pennsylvania’s PMTA-status documentation requirements, the Attorney General’s certification materials still impose separate obligations. Manufacturers must provide packaging images, certify that the products do not contain nicotine, and submit test results from a certified domestic laboratory for the e-liquid or other substance that generates the vapor or aerosol confirming the absence of nicotine.

The law also defines “brand family” broadly. It groups together all styles sold under the same trademark and differentiated by flavor, nicotine strength, size, capacity, or similar descriptors, and it also captures substantially similar combinations of words, logos, symbols, colors, and other identifying features. That matters because Pennsylvania imposes fees and supporting-document obligations at both the brand-family and brand-style levels. Companies with large portfolios or shared branding across multiple SKUs will feel that structure quickly. Eligibility for directory listing is limited to three categories. A product may qualify if it has received an FDA marketing granted order; if it is covered by a timely filed PMTA submitted on or before September 9, 2020 and accepted for filing, so long as the application remains under FDA review or is subject to a denial order that has been stayed, rescinded, or vacated; or if no additional PMTA was required because the product reflects only a change in name, brand style, or packaging from a product already covered by one of the first two categories. Later-filed PMTAs do not fit within the statute’s definition of a “timely filed” application and therefore do not provide an independent basis for listing.

Certification, Fees, and Supporting Materials

Each manufacturer selling covered products in Pennsylvania must certify to the Attorney General within 60 days of the law’s effective date and annually thereafter. The Office of Attorney General has set April 21, 2026 as the deadline for the initial certification, with annual recertifications due by April 21 thereafter, and has indicated that the initial directory will be published on June 20, 2026. Each certification must be made under penalty of perjury and must be supported by the applicable FDA order, acceptance letter, or documentation showing that a denial order has been stayed, rescinded, or vacated. Where a manufacturer relies on a name, brand-style, or packaging change that allegedly does not require a separate PMTA, it should expect to substantiate that position.

The statute also requires a surety bond payable to the Commonwealth in an amount fixed by the Attorney General of at least $50,000, and the Attorney General may demand a higher bond where warranted. Filing fees are assessed both by brand family and by brand style: $2,000 per brand family plus $200 per brand style for an initial certification, and $1,000 per brand family plus $100 per brand style for annual renewals.

In practice, the filing burden extends well beyond PMTA-status documents. The Attorney General’s certification portal calls for photographs and diagrams of manufacturing facilities, current USPTO trademark records, Pennsylvania tobacco-license materials where applicable, lists of Pennsylvania wholesalers, ownership and officer information, packaging images with UPCs, detailed brand lists, importer information and declarations for foreign-manufactured products, resident-agent materials, bond documentation, and product-specific FDA records. For manufacturers with complex supply chains, contract manufacturing arrangements, or shared branding across nicotine and non-nicotine lines, assembling that package may be a significant project in itself. Once the directory is live, the sales restrictions are real and fast approaching. The statute requires the Attorney General to update the directory at least monthly. Retailers will have 120 days from the initial publication date to sell through or remove unlisted inventory. Wholesalers will have 120 days from that same date to remove unlisted products from inventory intended for Pennsylvania retail sale. After that period, unlisted products are contraband subject to seizure, forfeiture, and destruction. The Attorney General has identified October 19, 2026, as the date after which products not appearing on the directory will be subject to seizure, with all associated costs borne by the responsible parties. In addition to seizure and destruction, retailers, wholesalers, and importers that sell or offer for sale non‑listed products face escalating civil penalties of up to $1,500 per product per day.

Pennsylvania’s ENDS directory law is therefore much more than a reporting obligation. It is a market-access regime backed by certifications, recurring fees, bonding, inspection authority, contraband treatment, and seizure risk. Manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, and retailers with Pennsylvania exposure should review product lines, branding, PMTA status, importer arrangements, and filing readiness well before the first certification deadline.

These issues, along with the broader patchwork of state nicotine product laws, will be a focus of discussion at Keller and Heckman’s 10th Annual E-Vapor, Nicotine, and Tobacco Law Symposium, to be held on May 4-5, 2026, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Additional information and registration details are available here.

Photo of Azim Chowdhury Azim Chowdhury

Azim Chowdhury is a regulatory and public policy attorney with a focus on vapor, nicotine and tobacco product regulation. He is a Partner in Keller and Heckman’s nationally-ranked food and drug law practice.

Mr. Chowdhury advises domestic and foreign corporations in matters of…

Azim Chowdhury is a regulatory and public policy attorney with a focus on vapor, nicotine and tobacco product regulation. He is a Partner in Keller and Heckman’s nationally-ranked food and drug law practice.

Mr. Chowdhury advises domestic and foreign corporations in matters of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and international regulatory compliance. In particular, he has developed expertise in tobacco and vapor product regulation relating to the implementation of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, and spearheaded the Tobacco and E-Vapor practice at Keller and Heckman. Specifically, Mr. Chowdhury has experience representing tobacco, e-cigarette and e-liquid manufacturers, distributors, retailers, suppliers and trade associations in matters of FDA, state and global regulatory compliance. He also assists corporations in establishing clearances for food and drug additives in the U.S., Canada, and European Union, with an emphasis on indirect additives used in food-contact materials.

Mr. Chowdhury has authored and edited numerous articles and publications, including Tobacco Regulation and Compliance: An Essential Resource, FDA Regulation of Tobacco: A Comprehensive Guide – An FDLI Primer and Tobacco and Nicotine Delivery: Regulation and Compliance, 2nd Edition. He is a frequent contributor to the Food and Drug Law Institute’s (FDLI) Update Magazine and has served on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Food and Drug Law Journal.  In addition, he has been interviewed in the U.S. News and World Reports Best Lawyers Edition (2016) and was named one of “10 Names to Know in the Vape World” in the October 2015 issue of Vape Magazine. Mr. Chowdhury received the 2018 National Law Review Go-To Thought Leadership Award for his consistent coverage of the emerging issues surrounding vaping and e-cigarettes on Keller and Heckman’s law blog, The Continuum of Risk.  As an industry leader, Mr. Chowdhury frequently speaks at industry conferences and events.

Mr. Chowdhury also has an active pro bono practice through Keller and Heckman’s Pro Bono Program, and has been featured in the Baltimore Sun for successfully obtaining asylum in the United States for a family who fled their home country of El Salvador because of violence they faced from an international gang.

Prior to entering private practice, he served as a judicial law clerk on the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Mr. Chowdhury received a B.A. and B.S. from Johns Hopkins University, a MBA from the University of Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business, and a JD, cum laude, from the University of Maryland School of Law.

Education: Johns Hopkins University (B.A., B.S., 2003); University of Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business (M.B.A., 2006); University of Maryland School of Law (J.D., 2006, cum laude).

Admissions: District of Columbia; Maryland

Read more about Azim ChowdhuryEmailAzim's Linkedin ProfileAzim's Twitter Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Kaitlyn Johnson Kaitlyn Johnson
Email
  • Posted in:
    Food, Drug & Agriculture, Government and Public Policy
  • Blog:
    The Continuum of Risk
  • Organization:
    Keller Heckman
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo