On December 17, 2024, Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc., Global Source Distribution, LLC, and others filed a complaint[1] and motion for a preliminary injunction[2] in federal district court against the Iowa Department of Revenue (the Department) challenging Iowa House File 2677 (HF 2677), a law imposing certification and directory requirements on vapor products sold in Iowa. A hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for March 5. If the court rules in the plaintiffs’ favor, it could stay enforcement of the new law until the case is ultimately resolved. While the Department was previously scheduled to publish the vapor products directory on January 2 and begin enforcement on February 3, the Department has not published the directory, and its website indicates that it will not be enforcing the directory. The Department’s website states: “Publication and enforcement of Iowa’s vapor products directory is delayed until further notice. The Department will make an additional announcement before publication and enforcement of the vapor products directory begins. During the delay, manufacturers should continue to submit certification applications.”

HF 2677

HF 2677 introduces several amendments and new sections to the Iowa Code and aims to enhance compliance, establish a vapor products directory, and ensure that revenues from taxes and penalties are directed toward health care-related purposes. Key provisions are summarized below.

  1. Inspection Rights
    • The Department is granted the authority to inspect premises of Iowa permit holders where vapor products are stored, sold, or transported.
    • The Department can examine all stocks and records related to vapor products.
    • It is unlawful for permit holders to obstruct these inspections or fail to produce required records.
  2. Certification and Directory
    • By August 1 annually, any vapor product manufacturer whose products are directly or indirectly sold in Iowa must certify that (a) it has received marketing authorization from U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); or (b) its products were on the market in the U.S. as of August 8, 2016, the manufacturer submitted a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) to the FDA on or before September 9, 2020, and the PMTA remains under review by the FDA or a final decision on the PMTA has not otherwise taken effect.
    • A $100 fee per product listed is required.
    • The Department will maintain a public directory on its website of certified vapor products and manufacturers, updated monthly.
  3. Sales Restrictions
    • Only vapor products listed in the directory can be sold in Iowa.
    • Retailers must purchase vapor products from licensed distributors or subjobbers.
  4. Penalties
    • Civil penalties for selling nonlisted vapor products range from $300 to $1500 per day and could lead to retail permit suspension and revocation.
    • Manufacturers face a $1,000 daily penalty for noncompliance.
    • False representations by manufacturers are classified as serious misdemeanors.
  5. Compliance Checks
    • Unannounced compliance checks will be conducted by the Department or peace officers.
    • Results of compliance checks will be published annually.
  6. Agent for Service of Process
    • Nonresident manufacturers must appoint an agent in Iowa for service of process.
    • Failure to appoint an agent results in the Iowa Secretary of State being deemed the agent, but this does not satisfy directory inclusion requirements.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint

Below is a summary of the plaintiffs’ claims.

  1. Supremacy Clause Violation: The plaintiffs argue that HF 2677 is preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which grants the FDA exclusive authority to regulate tobacco products, including vapor products. They claim that HF 2677 encroaches on the FDA’s enforcement authority, violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
  2. Equal Protection Clause Violation (Fourteenth Amendment): The plaintiffs argue that HF 2677 treats manufacturers and sellers of vapor products containing tobacco-derived nicotine differently from those containing nontobacco-derived nicotine without a rational basis, violating the Equal Protection Clause.
  3. Equal Protection Clause Violation (Iowa Constitution): Similar to the federal claim, the plaintiffs’ argue that HF 2677’s differential treatment of vapor products based on the source of nicotine lacks a “valid reason” for such treatment, violating the Iowa Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiffs also asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of HF 2677 for the reasons below.

  1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits: The plaintiffs argue they are likely to succeed on their claims that HF 2677 is preempted by the FDCA and violates both federal and state constitutions.
  2. Irreparable Harm: The plaintiffs argue that the enforcement of HF 2677 will cause them irreparable harm by forcing them to stop selling certain vapor products, leading to significant financial losses and potential business closures.
  3. Balance of Equities and Public Interest: The plaintiffs argue that the balance of equities and public interest favor granting the injunction, as it would prevent constitutional violations and protect the plaintiffs’ businesses.

Why It Matters

Over the last couple of years, we have seen several states pass substantially similar legislation, which we have previously written about here and here. This litigation is worth monitoring because it could form the basis for challenging similar laws in other states.

[1] https://www.regulatoryoversight.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/925/2025/01/Complaint_Iowans_for_Alternatives_to_Smoking_Tobacco_Inc_v_Iowa_Department_of_Revenue.pdf

[2] https://www.regulatoryoversight.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/925/2025/01/Motion_Iowans_for_Alternatives_to_Smoking_Tobacco_Inc_v_Iowa_Department_of_Revenue.pdf