ArticleBMC public health2026
The role of third-party e-commerce technology in illegal online e-cigarette sales.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe online tobacco market currently accounts for 15% of tobacco products with most online e-cigarette stores depending on Software as a Service (SaaS) solutions like Shopify for site functionality. While the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act restricts online sales by requiring age verification upon delivery and prohibiting shipping with select couriers, concerns remain about youth access to e-cigarettes. This study examines online e-cigarette stores' apparent compliance with regulations designed to prevent youth sales in the US and the SaaS used by online e-cigarette stores.
methodsSearch engines and lists were used to identify eligible online e-cigarette stores (N = 58). Two trained coders coded stores for three PACT Act violations: (a) failure to verify buyer age; (b) failure to require a signature upon delivery; and (c) shipping via a restricted carrier. Separately, using a semi-automated browser in Python, we visited each store and tracked all web requests made to SaaS while visiting the site (N = 48). Lastly, SaaS used by four or more stores (N = 18) had terms of use coded for relevant legal language.
resultsOf the 58 stores coded in the study, 51 (88%) violated at least one of the three regulations tested. The most common violation was using a restricted shipping company (N = 45, 78%). All 18 SaaS used by four or more stores had at least 60% of their client stores in the study appearing to violate a regulation. The most used SaaS provider was Shopify, used by 29 (50%) of stores, of which 26 (90%) had at least one violation. A review of policies of the SaaS providers revealed 16 (89%) explicitly required clients to comply with local and federal regulations. The third-most-used SaaS explicitly stated that the service could not be used for tobacco. DISCUSSION: Despite SaaS policies requiring stores to comply with laws, most online e-cigarette stores failed to adhere to PACT Act restrictions aimed at preventing youth access to e-cigarettes. Stricter enforcement of the PACT Act and SaaS providers’ policies are needed to prevent youth from accessing e-cigarettes.
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.