The disposable vape ban: Defining reusable and the loopholes that could undermine the ban

According to Material Focus, over 13 million vapes are bought in the UK every week, with around 8 million of them either thrown irresponsibly or recycled incorrectly. Improper disposal adds to the waste challenge as each device contains plastic and lithium-ion batteries that require safe and responsible recycling.

Fortunately, many vape companies have been moving away from disposable products by developing reusable formats, such as rechargeable devices that use replaceable pods. Consumer habits appear to be changing too, with a study by University College London showing that disposable vape use is in decline.

However, despite clear progress with many brands rising to meet the challenge with genuine innovation, others are deliberately trying to sidestep upcoming legal requirements or stretching the intent of the environmental legislation.

Media reports have recently flagged examples of products with fake or non-functional charging ports, designed to mislead regulators into classifying them as reusable. These are the most blatant instances.

But there are also less obvious cases, where products technically qualify as reusable yet are designed in ways that fall short of delivering on their environmental promise.

One recent example is from a leading brand, SKE, which introduced two reusable devices. One offers a compact and swappable pod system, a welcome shift following the lead of other reusable products on the market that offer an improvement in terms of waste.

However, the other, the SKE Bar, includes a thick plastic outer case around the pod, significantly increasing material use without adding any real functional or practical benefit. Promoted as “eco-friendly”, a claim in breach of advertising codes, the device’s unnecessary and excessive plastic build raises questions, particularly when compared to SKE’s more streamlined reusable model.

Environmental legislation means reusable products must have refills that consumers can easily purchase and replace. Given retailers have only so much shelf space, if a refill takes up nearly as much room as the full device, stocking it creates a practical challenge. It also raises broader concerns. Is such design truly supporting the goals of reuse and sustainability? Or is it a case of appearing to meet the legal definition but not the environmental intent behind it, and encouraging disposable consumption behaviour?

There’s another issue. The UK’s Green Claims Code makes clear that environmental claims, including words like “eco” and “sustainable” must be backed by evidence. Exaggerated implications that a product is better for the environment than it actually is can be considered greenwashing.

For the disposable ban to deliver real environmental impact, regulators must focus on how products are used and marketed, not just how they’re technically classified. Enforcement will be critical to ensure that reusable means more than tick-box compliance and actually translates into reduced waste and repeated use, in a practical manner.

As the UK moves towards one of its biggest environmental shifts in vaping regulation, all stakeholders (brands, retailers, policymakers and consumers) must commit to the driving goal of reducing vape-related waste. To achieve real change, a product’s reusability must be reflected in its design, marketing and day-to-day use. Anything less undermines the point of the environmental reform, which, if upheld, could mark a meaningful step forward in addressing waste and restoring confidence in regulation.