ArticleTobacco control2026
Online retailer noncompliance to e-cigarette excise tax and tobacco licensing laws.
Article in Tobacco control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Poor compliance with PACT Act shipping label requirements among online vaping retailers.Tobacco control · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTax non-compliance by online vaping retailers undermines excise taxes designed to reduce vaping rates and fund prevention efforts. Despite California's 12.5% Electronic Cigarette Excise Tax and federal mandates under the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act, online vaping retailers' adherence to excise taxes remains unclear. This study assessed excise tax compliance among online vaping retailers shipping products to California consumers.
methods156 purchase attempts were made from n=78 online vaping retailers shipping to San Diego residential addresses. 16 buyers used their personal billing information and residential addresses. Receipts obtained from their purchases were analysed to determine if retailers charged the required 12.5% tax. Retailer licensing status was verified by comparing retailer information to the state's licensed business list using geolocation and approximate string matching. Differences in compliance rates were compared using χ
resultsOf the n=58 retailers with receipts, 84.5% did not charge the required excise tax. In-state retailers were more likely to be (p<0.001) licensed than out-of-state (4.0%) or international (0.0%), but tax compliance rates did not significantly differ by retailer location (p=0.57)-intrastate (19.2%), interstate (16.7%) or international (0.0%). Licensed retailers had higher tax compliance (27.3%) than unlicensed ones (9.1%); however, overall compliance was low. DISCUSSION: Many online vape retailers fail to comply with California's excise tax and licensing laws. Low compliance rates indicate existing enforcement mechanisms are not optimised for online sales. Enhancing oversight and enforcement of excise tax laws for online retailers is crucial to reduce tax non-compliance, prevent revenue loss and support public health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.