Key takeaway: a Virginia suit challenging the Commonwealth’s new vapor product directory is now underway in federal court—and it joins a live appeal from North Carolina in the very same federal circuit. The outcome in either case could reshape state directory laws, and similar market‑access regimes, withstand challenges based on federal preemption, constitutional rules, and equal‑protection arguments. For manufacturers, retailers, and advisers, this is one to watch closely. 

What’s happened in Virginia 

• Who sued whom, and when: 
  In October 2025, two small Virginia businesses—NOVA Distro Inc. and Tobacco Hut & Vape Fairfax—filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Attorney General Jason Miyares and Tax Commissioner James J. Alex. The case is docketed as NOVA Distro, Inc., et al. v. Miyares, et al., filed Oct. 15, 2025.  
     
• What Virginia’s law actually does: 
  The 2024 statute creates a directory for nicotine vapor and liquid nicotine products. To stay lawful, manufacturers must certify annually that a product either has FDA marketing authorization or meets a specified condition tied to market presence as of August 8, 2016, or a timely PMTA submission that is still under review or not yet final. Coverage explains the directory framework and the requirement that only listed products can be sold after the law’s effective date.  

The law enforcement kicks in at the end of 2025: after the directory is published, products not listed cannot be sold, distributed, or imported, with civil penalties for non‑compliance.  

• Plaintiffs’ claims: 
  The businesses argue the law is preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), violates the Virginia Constitution’s ban on special laws, and breaches the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. They contend the directory imposes a competitive barrier favoring large firms able to bear FDA authorization costs, thus discriminating against smaller players. Coverage notes plaintiffs see the law as effectively a de facto flavor ban and overstepping federal authority.  
• Defendants’ response: 
  In November, Virginia moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing lack of standing, that the directory is within the state’s police power and not preempted, and that sovereign immunity and rational‑basis review justify the law. Coverage summarizes the state’s stance that the directory aligns with enforcing federal PMTA rules rather than conflicting with them.  
• Next procedural step: 
  Plaintiffs have pursued a preliminary injunction. A hearing on that request was scheduled in December 2025. The case will continue to develop through the winter, and any ruling could set the stage for appeals within the Fourth Circuit. 

Why this matters for business and strategy 

• It’s not just Virginia—this is a Fourth Circuit issue now. 
  A related case out of North Carolina is already on appeal at the Fourth Circuit: Vapor Technology Association v. Wooten, docketed July 2, 2025. The appeal stems from a district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief against North Carolina’s own directory law.  

The NC district court had earlier denied a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, finding plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on preemption claims at that stage. 

That means any Fourth Circuit decision could influence how Virginia’s case is viewed, especially on federal preemption and equal‑protection arguments. 

• Potential industry impact depends on how courts interpret preemption and state authority. 

1. If courts find state directory laws are preempted or otherwise unconstitutional, these regimes could be struck down or require significant adjustment, easing operational risk for some manufacturers and retailers. 
2. If courts uphold the laws, states may feel emboldened to adopt similar directories, pushing the industry toward compliance with varied state lists, potentially raising costs for smaller firms, or forcing tighter inventory controls. 

• Timing is tight for compliance planning. 
  Directory laws often include a clear enforcement date, after which sales of non‑listed products become illegal. Even as litigation unfolds, businesses need to plan for either scenario: prepare to comply or prepare to challenge and adapt if enforcement proceeds. The Virginia law, for instance, set a late‑2025 enforcement date—meaning companies must watch the litigation while also attending to immediate operational and legal responsibilities. 

Practical takeaways for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers 

• Stay informed and engage in the litigation timeline. 
  Court rulings, especially from the Fourth Circuit, could occur within months. Companies operating in or shipping to these states should track filings and decisions closely and consult counsel to understand implications for product listings, marketing, and inventory. 
• Assess financial and operational exposure now. 
  Consider how directory requirements would affect product portfolios if enforced. This includes evaluating which products meet certification criteria, the costs of obtaining any necessary approvals, and how inventory might need to be shifted or reduced in the event of enforcement. 
• Prepare multi‑state compliance strategies. 
  Whether or not a given directory of law survives legal challenges, the fact that multiple states are pursuing similar regimes means a patchwork of requirements could become the norm. A proactive strategy—such as aligning product offerings to be compliant or diversifying distribution to less restrictive markets—should be evaluated. 
• Coordinate legal, regulatory, and business messaging. 
  For B2B relationships, partners value clarity on what the law requires today, what litigation might change tomorrow, and what contingency plans exist. Clear internal and external communication helps maintain trust when law enforcement is uncertain. 
• Monitor the role of federal preemption arguments. 
  A ruling that emphasizes federal supremacy in tobacco regulation would signal that states’ authority to impose directory-based market access rules is limited. Conversely, a ruling giving states room to act within public‑health or consumer‑protection police powers would encourage more state‑level action. Either outcome alters the market’s regulatory landscape. 

Bottom line 

Virginia’s directory challenge is not an isolated event—it’s part of a cluster of legal fights over how far states can go in controlling which vapor products are allowed for sale. With North Carolina’s appeal already pending in the Fourth Circuit, any decision here could ripple across the region and beyond. 

For B2B operators, the best response now is to track developments, evaluate business exposure, and build flexible plans that can pivot depending on how the courts rule. The regulatory terrain is shifting; being proactive will help mitigate risk and seize opportunities no matter how the litigation lands.