Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objective This project assesses how online vape shops (OVSs) verify buyer identification (ID) and the shipping methods used to send products within the USA.
Methodology In January 2023, we conducted three online searches (eg, ‘best online vape shops’) from our office in Washington, District of Columbia, to identify popular OVSs. Two trained coders identified discrete features available within the site sections: ‘About Us’, ‘Shipping Policy’ and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’, or displayed within the site’s homepage. Coders recorded OVS listed locations, shipping discounts, shipping companies used and ID verification methods. Lastly, coders indicated if the site requested ID/age verification after adding an item to the shopping cart and initiating checkout procedures.
Results We identified 64 unique OVSs; 92.2% (n=59) offered shipping and 82.8% (n=53) shipped to US buyers; 76.6% (n=49) allowed visitors to type a birthday or choose the ‘21 or older’ option to access the site. Of the 59 sites shipping to buyers, 76.3% (n=45) offered free shipping, 21.9% (n=14) required login to purchase products, while most sites (n=45, 76.3%) allowed visitors to reach the checkout page without ID verification. The US Postal Service is the most commonly used shipping carrier (n=23), in violation of the Preventing All Cigarette Trafficking Act.
Conclusions Most OVSs rely on age self-certification, which underage youth can easily exploit to access these products. Findings warrant that the Food and Drug Administration, state and local policymakers explore additional actions regulating online tobacco sales to address the compliance issues our data elucidate. These include enhanced surveillance, compliance checks and stricter penalties.
- Surveillance and monitoring
- Electronic nicotine delivery devices
- Prevention
- Public policy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Twitter @MeganCDiaz, @ehairphd
Contributors AB and MCD conceptualised this study. AB developed the codebook with input from MCD. AB trained the coders and helped resolve coding discrepancies. AB analysed the data. ECH and BAS provided supervision and support. AB wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the editing of the manuscript.
Funding Truth Initiative supported this work.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.