France has banned nicotine pouches, and that is a problem for the single market.
France’s ban on oral nicotine threatens to create a legal rupture in the European Union’s single market. It turns the possession of a product which is legal in one member state into a criminal offence the moment a person crosses into French territory. This is a recipe for legal chaos, cross-border crime, and other undesirable outcomes from an ill-considered policy.
On 1st April 2026, Decree No. 2025-898 entered into force in France, making it illegal to manufacture, import, distribute, possess, and use oral nicotine products. That includes nicotine pouches, the popular, odourless tool widely used as a tool to quit smoking. Any EU citizen found in French territory with a package of nicotine pouches, a product they legally use in their home country, faces up to five years in prison and a fine of €375,000. This seems a hefty penalty for possessing a product legally purchased in a tobacconist in Stockholm, Berlin, or Lisbon.
The European Union is built on the fundamental principle of the internal market: goods lawfully placed on the market in one member state should be able to circulate freely across the bloc. France’s decree directly conflicts with that principle. EU citizens who legally possess and use these products in their home countries risk severe penalties upon entering French territory.
However, there has been pushback. France’s Council of State suspended parts of the decree in December 2025. Sweden formally opposed the measure as a member state. Five Swedish Members of the European Parliament submitted a formal parliamentary question to the European Commission (P-001366/2026), asking whether the measures are proportionate and what scientific evidence supports them. If no response is provided within three weeks, Sweden’s Social Democratic Party has indicated it may take the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The same five Members of the European Parliament – Heléne Fritzon, Johan Danielsson, Evin Incir, Adnan Dibrani, and Sofie Eriksson – also wrote to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, warning of a violation of the internal market, and to European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, calling for the suspension of plenary sessions in Strasbourg while French law maintains disproportionate penalties.
Yet the European Commission, the only institution with the authority to initiate infringement proceedings against France, has limited itself to stating that it is “monitoring the situation.” This passivity is difficult to justify.
The French government frames the ban as a public health measure designed to protect young people. It is legitimate for France to regulate products within its territory, but the rules of the EU internal market are clear. Member states cannot selectively benefit from common rules while disregarding them.
Moreover, the decree is deeply inconsistent. It criminalises tobacco-free alternatives to cigarettes which research has consistently shown to be much less harmful. Meanwhile, cigarettes remain legal. France has a smoking rate of around 23% – far above the EU’s “tobacco-free generation” target of 5%.
It is no coincidence that Swedish MEPs have been among the most vocal standing up against France on this issue. Sweden offers the clearest contrast to the French path. Its successes put France to shame. It has a smoking rate below 5%, making it the first country in the world to reach “smoke-free” status. Unsurprisingly, it records significantly fewer tobacco-related deaths per capita than the European average.
The difference is regulatory. Sweden has relied on access to less harmful alternatives, such as snus and nicotine pouches, as part of its smoking cessation strategy. 3.5 million premature deaths could be avoided across the EU if other countries adopted a similar approach.
France’s Council of State has already suspended parts of the decree related to manufacturing and exports, acknowledging the implementation timeline was inadequate and that concerns regarding compatibility with EU trade rules merit review. A final decision is expected in June 2026. In the meantime, the ban on personal possession remains in force.
The European Commission is currently working on a revision of the Tobacco Products Directive which will shape the future regulatory framework for these products. Many of the measures proposed under the banner of a “smoke-free Europe” go far beyond that objective and will determine what member states are able to do in the future across a range of policy areas.
If the Commission fails to act in this case, it will effectively validate a model in which any member state can invoke public health to override the principles of the single market. The issue is not national regulation. Regulation is legitimate. The issue is the criminalisation of behaviour which is legal in other member states of the same union, with harsh penalties.
The single market is one of the greatest advantages of EU membership. Its credibility depends on the consistent application of its own rules.
Photo Credit: Daniel Wiberg, CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Good reporting is cheaper than heavy-handed regulation. Support freedom and independent journalism by donating today.
This piece reflects the author’s views, not necessarily the entire magazine. We welcome a range of pro-liberty perspectives. Send us your pitch or draft.
