FTC and FDA Warn e-Liquid Companies to Disclose Hazards and Connections

1 Minute Read

June 25, 2019

By Alex Lazo

Categories: Advertising & Marketing, Consumer Protection

The FTC and the FDA jointly sent warning letters to four manufacturers of flavored e-liquid products, citing the absence of particular disclosures in paid social media endorsements as potentially in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the FTC Act.

On the FDA front, the absence of a statement that “WARNING: This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical” could violate federal regulations covering labeling and advertising for tobacco products. The letters go on to state that, “given the significant risk of addiction, the failure to disclose the presence of and risks associated with nicotine raises concerns that the social media postings could be unfair or likely to mislead,” potentially in violation of the FTC Act. Likewise, the agencies emphasized that the failure to clearly and conspicuously disclose any material connections between the influencers and the companies could run afoul of the FTC’s Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. The companies were instructed to take remedial action to address these concerns and report back to the FDA and FTC within 15 days of receipt.

Tags: Consumer Products, e-liquid products, Endorsements, FDA, FTC

You May Also Be Interested In

3 Minute Read

January 22, 2026

Kentucky Attorney General Announces First Enforcement Action Under New Privacy Law

On January 8, 2026, the Kentucky Attorney General announced the first enforcement action against a company for alleged violations of the Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act, just eight days after the law went into effect. The enforcement action is part of a larger legislative and regulatory focus on AI-powered chatbots used by minors.

6 Minute Read

November 5, 2025

ISO Approves New Litigation Funding Disclosure Condition Endorsement

By Michael S. Levine and Natalie Reed

Third-party funding of high-stakes litigation can often make the difference between litigating the case or walking away. The financial arrangement often makes good sense, with investors helping to facilitate the pursuit of bona fide claims that might otherwise be forgone in exchange for a piece of the recovery. Insurance coverage disputes fit this model well, since those claims typically involve an insured who has already suffered some financial or other hardship and an insurance company with deep resources that refuses to pay the claim. It should come as little surprise, therefore, that the Insurance Services Office (ISO), an advisory and rating organization for the property/casualty insurance industry, recently approved a new endorsement that requires disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements. The approval comes as courts and state legislatures step up demands for transparency in funding to curtail influence that funders may have over litigation strategy.

4 Minute Read

July 14, 2025

How Much Plastic is Too Much? Class Action Plaintiffs Skip the Homework and Fail the Test

By Gray Moeller

Notwithstanding the FDA’s finding that “[c]urrent scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health,” the plaintiffs’ bar steadfastly continues to file class action lawsuits claiming otherwise.