In recent months, the global fight over vaping has intensified, with governments in both Wisconsin and the United Kingdom taking decisive steps to clamp down on e-cigarette and vape product sales. Yet, as two very different approaches unfold on opposite sides of the Atlantic, the results are proving as complex as the products themselves—raising questions about regulation, enforcement, and unintended consequences for public health, the environment, and business owners.
On September 1, 2025, a new Wisconsin law went into effect, banning the sale of e-cigarettes and vaping products that have not received explicit marketing authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. According to Wisconsin Public Radio, this move instantly shrank the market to just 39 FDA-approved products, leaving retailers scrambling to clear their shelves of hundreds of now-illegal items. Any store caught selling non-approved vapes faces a steep penalty: $1,000 per day for every product in violation.
The law, passed in 2023, was met with fierce opposition from Wisconsinites for Alternatives to Smoking and Tobacco—better known as WiscoFAST. This summer, the trade group filed suit against the state Department of Revenue, arguing that only the federal government, not individual states, has the authority to enforce FDA policy. Their case, however, hit an immediate roadblock last Friday when Judge William Conley of the Western District of Wisconsin denied their request for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement.
Judge Conley, in his court order, wrote, "Plaintiffs’ unexplained delay in bringing suit until just before the statute takes effect offsets the arguably limited harm in further extending enforcement for a few more months given the state’s repeated extensions of the date enforcement would begin." He further concluded that preventing the state from enforcing the law would not serve the public interest or prevent harm, and that WiscoFAST and its fellow plaintiffs had “failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success” in their suit.
The ruling was a bitter pill for WiscoFAST to swallow. Tyler Hall, the organization’s president, responded in a statement: "We are disheartened by Judge Conley’s ruling, which we believe does not fully recognize the preemption authority of the FDA under federal law." Hall emphasized the personal and economic stakes, stating, "This forces thousands of retailers across the state to remove products that adult consumers rely on." He added, "We will continue to pursue every available legal avenue to protect consumer choice and the livelihoods of thousands of Wisconsin workers. This is a matter of federal authority, public health and economic survival for our members."
Undeterred, WiscoFAST filed notice that it would appeal the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the vape ban while the legal battle continues. Meanwhile, the Department of Revenue’s website notes that a similar ban on hemp-based vape products, such as delta THC devices, is expected to take effect in 2026, potentially broadening the impact even further.
While Wisconsin’s approach focuses on restricting the market to FDA-approved products, the United Kingdom has taken a different tack: an outright ban on disposable vapes, which took effect in June 2025. The aim was simple—reduce the millions of single-use devices being discarded incorrectly each month, a trend that was causing mounting environmental and safety concerns.
Yet, as reported by BBC and 2Firsts, the ban’s effectiveness is now being called into question. Roger Wright, strategy and packaging manager at Biffa—one of the UK’s largest waste firms, handling nearly a fifth of the nation's waste—sounded the alarm: "We're seeing more vapes in our system than ever before—causing more problems and more fires." In the two months leading up to the ban, Biffa’s recycling facilities found around 200,000 incorrectly disposed vapes per month. In the three months following the ban, that number actually rose by 3%, bringing the estimated total to about one million devices improperly disposed of each month across the UK.
The situation is further complicated by the vape industry’s response. According to Wright, major vape firms quickly introduced new, cheap reusable models designed to skirt the ban. But instead of refilling and recycling these devices, many consumers are simply using them as disposables and tossing them away—often into general recycling bins where they don’t belong. "We see a lot of these so-called reusables in bins because people use them as disposables," Wright explained. The proliferation of new vape varieties, he added, has made recycling even more difficult: "Innovation has gone crazy to get around the ban. Ironically, this makes recycling much harder."
Vapes present a unique hazard when discarded improperly. Each device contains a lithium battery, which can ignite if crushed or damaged—earning vapes the ominous nickname "bombs in bins." In June alone, Biffa reported dealing with 60 fires caused by discarded vapes and other small electronics. The cost to the UK waste industry is staggering, with annual damages estimated at £1 billion.
Not everyone agrees on the cause of the problem. Marcus Sexton of the Independent British Vape Trade Association maintains that the ban is working, citing data that shows consumers are refilling and recharging devices. He suggested that if Biffa’s findings are accurate, the blame likely lies with illegal disposable products still circulating in the black market. Meanwhile, waste managers like Wright insist the real issue is the flood of new, ostensibly "reusable" products that are being discarded just as carelessly as their banned predecessors.
To address these mounting challenges, Wright advocates for a more robust approach to e-waste collection. He believes the solution lies in collecting vapes and electronics directly from households, alongside regular waste and recycling—a system some local councils have already begun to implement. The UK government, for its part, requires retailers to provide recycling bins for vapes and has promised a forthcoming circular economy strategy to improve the reuse and recycling of electrical equipment. A government spokesperson was blunt about the stakes: "Single-use vapes get kids hooked on nicotine and blight our high streets—that’s why we’ve taken tough action and banned them."
Back in Wisconsin, the debate is far from settled. As WiscoFAST prepares its appeal, the state’s vape retailers and consumers face a new reality—one that could soon expand to include hemp-based products as well. The outcome of the legal battle may set a precedent for how states can regulate products already under federal oversight, with significant implications for public health, commerce, and individual choice.
As both Wisconsin and the UK are discovering, regulating vapes is anything but straightforward. Whether through tightly restricting approved products or banning disposables outright, each approach brings its own set of challenges—and, as the evidence shows, plenty of unintended consequences. For now, the only certainty is that the fight over vaping’s future is far from over, and the stakes—whether measured in health, safety, or livelihoods—couldn’t be higher.
