This lawsuit is not just about corporate overreach—it’s about protecting consumer choice and ensuring a fair playing field for small businesses in the vaping industry. 

Regulatory Manipulation & Market Control 

One of the key issues highlighted in the lawsuit is the push for a state-level registry of FDA-authorized vaping products. If implemented, this registry would significantly limit Montana’s vaping market to only 34 FDA-authorized products, nearly all of which are produced by large tobacco corporations. 

For independent vape businesses, this presents an existential threat. The FDA’s approval process is notoriously expensive and time-consuming, creating a significant barrier to entry for small manufacturers. If Montana follows through with such legislation, the independent vape market could be wiped out, handing full control to Big Tobacco. 

The Impact on Small Businesses 

Marshall’s lawsuit underscores the stark reality that independent vape retailers and manufacturers face an uphill battle against powerful corporate interests. If the FDA registry law moves forward, many small vape shops could be forced out of business, unable to stock the diverse range of products their customers demand. 

For wholesalers and distributors, the stakes are just as high. Restrictive regulations that favor only FDA-authorized products would limit inventory options, disrupt supply chains, and ultimately reduce profitability across the industry. 

The Master Settlement Agreement Violations 

The lawsuit also points to alleged violations of the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, which was designed to curb aggressive marketing practices, particularly those targeting youth. Under the agreement, tobacco companies are required to submit annual lobbying reports in Montana—a requirement Marshall claims they have failed to meet. 

This raises serious questions about accountability and enforcement. If Big Tobacco is indeed violating the terms of the MSA, what consequences should they face? And more importantly, who will ensure that these corporations play by the same rules as everyone else? 

A Conflict of Interest? 

Marshall also alleges that Attorney General Knudsen has an “inextricable conflict of interest” due to financial contributions from Altria and Reynolds. The lawsuit claims that both companies were “platinum” sponsors of Knudsen’s January 2025 inauguration party. Additionally, it highlights an op-ed published by Knudsen, which reportedly echoes talking points from tobacco lobbyists, further suggesting undue influence. 

If these allegations hold up in court, they could expose deeper systemic issues of corporate influence in state policymaking, with potential repercussions beyond Montana. 

What’s Next for the Industry? 

As this lawsuit unfolds, the vaping industry must prepare for the potential ripple effects. A ruling in Marshall’s favor could set a precedent that challenges Big Tobacco’s control over the regulatory landscape, potentially influencing similar cases in other states. 

For businesses operating in the vape sector, staying informed and engaged in advocacy efforts is more critical than ever. Whether through industry organizations, lobbying efforts, or direct outreach to lawmakers, now is the time to push back against anti-competitive regulations that threaten independent businesses. 

Final Thoughts 

The battle over vaping regulations is far from over, and the outcome of this lawsuit could reshape the industry. As major tobacco companies attempt to consolidate their grip on the market, independent vape businesses must stand together to fight for fair and reasonable policies. 

The coming months will be crucial in determining whether Montana’s vape industry remains a landscape of innovation and choice or falls victim to corporate monopolization. One thing is clear: the fight for vaping freedom is far from finished.