Denver’s Flavored Tobacco Ban Faces Constitutional Challenge From Vape Trade Group

Jan.27

A Colorado vape industry trade group says Denver’s voter-approved flavored tobacco sales ban is unconstitutional and too vague to enforce. The group is asking a state court for a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of Ordinance 24-1765 and for a declaration allowing flavored tobacco and vape sales, citing state constitutional vagueness concerns and multiple U.S. constitutional issues.

Key points

• Plaintiff: Rocky Mountain Smoke Free Alliance (represents ~125 small business owners and manufacturers in Colorado’s vaping industry)

• Defendants: City of Denver and Denver Department of Public Health and Environment (DDPHE)

• Ordinance: Denver Ordinance 24-1765; approved by voters in Nov. 2025; effective Jan. 1, 2026

• Main claim: terms like “cooling or numbing sensation” are subjective and lack generally accepted meanings

• Additional claims: Equal Protection (hookah exemption), Dormant Commerce Clause (packaging changes for Denver), First Amendment (flavor statements/images as commercial speech)

2First, January 27, 2026.

According to Law360, the Rocky Mountain Smoke Free Alliance (RMSFA), a trade group representing about 125 small business owners and manufacturers in Colorado’s vaping industry, has asked a Colorado state court to issue a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of Denver’s flavored tobacco sales ban (Ordinance 24-1765) and a declaration permitting the sale of flavored tobacco and vape products. Voters approved the ordinance in November and it took effect on Jan. 1, 2026.

RMSFA argues the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague under the Colorado Constitution, contending that key terms—such as whether a product imparts a “cooling or numbing sensation”—describe highly subjective experiences without generally accepted meanings. The complaint also raises concerns that the city and DDPHE contemplated relying on sources like online customer reviews to make enforcement determinations, potentially exposing products and retailers to misleading or manipulated information.

The lawsuit also asserts violations of the U.S. Constitution, including:

Equal Protection, because the ordinance exempts hookah tobacco despite allegedly containing flavorings and posing greater health risks than e-cigarettes;
Dormant Commerce Clause, because out-of-city retailers would have to modify packaging for Denver; and
First Amendment, because flavor-related statements and imagery on packaging constitute commercial speech promoting a product.

RMSFA alleges the ordinance harms approximately 575 tobacco retailers in Denver, could cost the city roughly $13 million in annual tax revenue, and may spur increased unregulated sales of flavored products.

Image Source: Law360

References:

[1] Denver Faces Lawsuit Over Flavored Tobacco Ban

Also Read:

[1] Bloomberg-Backed Campaign Wins as Denver Votes to Ban Flavored Nicotine

[2] Denver Flavored-Tobacco Ban Spurs Ballot Fight; Former NYC Mayor Donates $1.5 Million to Back Sales Ban

[3] Denver to Hold Referendum on Flavored Tobacco Sales Ban; If Approved, Enforcement Begins in 2026

[4] Denver city council considers ban on flavored tobacco sales

We welcome news tips, article submissions, interview requests, or comments on this piece.

Please contact us at info@2firsts.com, or reach out to Alan Zhao, CEO of 2Firsts, on LinkedIn

Notice

1. This article is intended solely for professional research purposes related to industry, technology, and policy. Any references to brands or products are made purely for objective description and do not constitute any form of endorsement, recommendation, or promotion by 2Firsts.

2. The use of nicotine-containing products — including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouchand heated tobacco products — carries significant health risks. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.

3. This article is not intended to serve as the basis for any investment decisions or financial advice. 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any inaccuracies or errors in the content.

4. Access to this article is strictly prohibited for individuals below the legal age in their jurisdiction.

Copyright

This article is either an original work created by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with proper attribution. All copyrights and usage rights belong to 2Firsts or the original content provider. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other form of unauthorized use by any individual or organization is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally accountable.

For copyright-related inquiries, please contact: info@2firsts.com

AI Assistance Disclaimer

This article may have been enhanced using AI tools to improve translation and editorial efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, inaccuracies may occur. Readers are encouraged to refer to the cited sources for the most accurate information.

We welcome any corrections or feedback. Please contact us at: info@2firsts.com