Business Regulation - Electronic Smoking Devices Manufacturers - Certifications
SB 918 creates a new certification and directory system for electronic smoking devices manufacturers whose products are sold in Maryland. Each year, manufacturers would have to submit a detailed certification to the Attorney General identifying brand families and brand styles sold in the United States and in Maryland, providing product images, specifications, packaging, marketing materials, and other information needed to assess whether products are youth-appealing, misleading, or unlawfully marketed as cessation products. The Attorney General would then publish and maintain a public directory of approved manufacturers and product lines.
The bill also requires certain manufacturers to maintain a qualified escrow account with at least $75,000 before being listed on the directory, with a possible reduction for FDA-authorized products. Products not listed on the directory would be treated as contraband and could not be sold, possessed for sale, or imported for personal consumption in the State. The bill further authorizes inspections, reporting, information-sharing among state agencies, civil penalties, license suspension or revocation, and misdemeanor penalties for certain knowing violations. It also makes violations of the directory prohibition an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
SB 918 would substantially amend Maryland’s Business Regulation Article by tightening licensing rules for electronic smoking devices manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and vape shop vendors, and by adding a new Subtitle 3 governing manufacturer certifications. It expands the Attorney General’s and Executive Director’s enforcement authority, creates a public directory as a prerequisite for lawful sales, imposes escrow requirements on manufacturers, and authorizes seizure, forfeiture, and disposal of noncompliant products. The bill also amends the Commercial Law Article to classify violations of the directory prohibition as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices, bringing those violations within the Maryland Consumer Protection Act’s enforcement and penalty framework.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or hearing debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed as a strong enforcement and consumer-protection proposal aimed at regulating vape and electronic smoking device sales, especially to prevent youth access and deceptive marketing. Its structure suggests a policy approach favoring tighter oversight and stronger state enforcement.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s regulatory burden and enforcement reach. Manufacturers may object to the annual certification requirements, the $1,000 per-brand-style fee, the escrow deposit requirement, and the broad information disclosures involving marketing plans, product samples, and social media materials. Retailers, wholesalers, and vape shop vendors may also be concerned about the directory-based contraband provisions, which could force rapid removal of products from inventory and expose businesses to seizure and penalties if a manufacturer falls out of compliance. Supporters would likely emphasize youth protection, product transparency, and the ability to remove unlawful or misleading products from the market.