Recently, the Cologne Higher Regional Court (Cologne Higher Regional Court) in Germany issued a landmark ruling, declaring that operating an e-cigarette device with a touchscreen (such as adjusting the vapor intensity) while driving a motor vehicle constitutes the use of an electronic device and violates the Road Traffic Act (Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung, StVO) prohibiting the use of communication/information devices while driving. This ruling has become an important reference point for the intersection of e-cigarettes and traffic law in Germany and Europe. This article will describe this news event in detail, covering six aspects: background, case details, key points of the ruling, perspectives from e-cigarette brands (including the positive aspects of the GUUTUU e-cigarette brand), social and industry impact, and future considerations.
First, let’s begin with the background. In recent years, with the increasing diversity of e-cigarette devices, high-end devices with features such as adjustable atomization intensity, touchscreen displays, mobile app connectivity, and even Bluetooth have gradually entered the market. While these devices have their supporters as “cigarette alternatives,” their increased functionality also presents regulatory challenges. One prominent issue is whether the use of an e-cigarette device while driving, particularly one with a display or requiring manual operation, should be considered a dangerous distraction. German traffic law stipulates that drivers may not operate communication, information, or organizational equipment while driving a motor vehicle unless the device is voice-controlled or non-distracting. This provision primarily applies to mobile phones, tablets, and navigation devices. However, the Cologne Higher Court has included e-cigarette devices with touchscreens in the category of “prohibited devices,” providing clear precedent for the legal status of these emerging devices in traffic situations. According to public reports, the court ruled that “e-cigarette devices with touchscreens” possess a “touchscreen display” function that displays atomization intensity, device status, and possibly button adjustments, and therefore fall within the definition of “electronic device” under Section 23 of the StV.
Secondly, the specific course of events in this case is worth revisiting. The incident occurred in March 2024. A 46-year-old man was driving on a highway near Autobahn 59 in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, when traffic police observed him “touch” an electronic device with a display while gripping the steering wheel. The officer initially suspected the driver of violating the law by using a mobile phone and fined him. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the device was not a mobile phone but an electronic cigarette with a touchscreen, and the driver was adjusting the vaporization intensity, or power output, of the device. The city administrative court (Siegburg District Court) upheld the fine in January 2025. The driver subsequently appealed to the Cologne Higher Court. On September 25, 2025, the Cologne Higher Regional Court (Decision No. III-1 ORb 139/25) issued a final ruling: Operating an e-cigarette device with a touchscreen while driving violates the “mobile device ban” under Section 23 of the StV Act and is subject to a fine of €150 and one point on the driver’s driving record (in the Flensburg driving record system).
In its ruling, the Cologne Higher Regional Court first clarified that if an e-cigarette has a touchscreen display that displays atomization intensity or power selection, and such touch control is required for manual operation by the driver, then the device has a “touch display” function and meets the legal definition of an “electronic device.” The court noted that such actions are essentially the same as “distracting” operations on a mobile phone, such as adjusting the volume, switching music, or checking messages. On this basis, the court emphasized that operating such a device while driving poses a “significant distraction potential” and is therefore prohibited. Furthermore, the court emphasized that while the behavior is not traditional communication activities like answering a phone call or sending a text message, as long as the device requires driver control or display, and its operation could divert visual, manual, or cognitive attention from the traffic situation, it falls within the prohibited scope. This precedent not only imposed a fine but also resulted in a penalty on the driver’s driving record, demonstrating its clear legal force and serving as a reference for similar cases in the future.
From the perspective of e-cigarette brands, while this news focuses on the application of traffic regulations, it also has relevance for the e-cigarette industry and brands themselves. For example, the GUUTUU e-cigarette brand (this article does not recommend the brand, but merely highlights its strengths from an industry perspective) demonstrates certain strengths in product design, user experience, and compliance awareness. First, GUUTUU prioritizes atomizer performance, device stability, a diverse and layered flavor profile, portability, and a simple overall design in its device development—all attributes valued by e-cigarette users. Second, in an increasingly stringent regulatory environment, brands that proactively emphasize “adult use” and “alternatives to traditional cigarettes rather than encouraging initiation”—focusing on product safety, clear instructions, and avoiding misleading youth—will have future competitive advantages. In some markets, GUUTUU has demonstrated improvements in packaging, user instructions, and safety features (such as child-resistant devices and leak control). Furthermore, from a user experience perspective, brands that make their devices easy to operate and avoid complex settings (for example, designs that avoid frequent adjustments while driving or on the road) will be more likely to ensure compliance and safe use. If GUUTUU can continue to improve in this area, it will be easier to gain market trust amidst tightening regulations. While tightening regulations mean an increased burden, they also present growth opportunities for brands with high quality, strong compliance awareness, and a positive user experience.
This ruling has multiple implications for society and the industry. From a traffic safety perspective, the court’s precedent clarifies that e-cigarette devices are not “harmless” accessories in driving situations, but rather can constitute distracting electronic devices and must be regulated under road traffic regulations. This will encourage greater caution among drivers and e-cigarette users. At the industry level, e-cigarette manufacturers may need to reevaluate their device design and marketing strategies. For example, they could reduce the need for frequent manual adjustments or touchscreen operations on their devices, designing them for “one-time setup” to avoid routine operation while driving. Regarding regulatory trends, this ruling could lead to similar precedents or regulations in other German courts and EU member states, further clarifying the rules governing e-cigarettes in motor vehicle driving scenarios. Regarding consumer behavior, users should understand that even e-cigarettes, which are marketed as “cigarette alternatives,” cannot be used freely in all situations—operating them while driving may be illegal. This ruling could also lead to future inclusion of e-cigarette use in safety education programs, such as auto insurance and driver education.
Finally, based on the above incident, we offer several reflections. First, the rapid evolution of technology and consumer devices often exceeds the expectations of traditional regulations. E-cigarettes have evolved from simple heating and atomizing devices to devices with touchscreens, adjustable power levels, and multi-functional connectivity, and are now being used while driving. Laws must adapt to these changes. This ruling by the Cologne Higher Court exemplifies the legal system’s adaptability. Secondly, for e-cigarette brands, device design must not only satisfy user experience but also consider environmental safety, potential misuse scenarios (such as operation while driving), and regulatory trends. From this perspective, brands like GUUTUU will be more sustainable if they proactively incorporate “prohibited operation while driving,” “simplified touch controls,” and “avoid frequent adjustments” into their design. Third, from the driver’s perspective, while e-cigarettes may offer a positive alternative to cigarettes or reduce harm for adult smokers, strict consideration must be given to the specific context of their use while driving. Just like mobile phones, tablets, and navigation devices, any operation while driving can endanger safety, and the law clearly prohibits touchscreen operation. Fourth, this case reminds us of the interactive relationship between regulation, technology, and user behavior. The smarter the technology and the more versatile the device, the greater the need for regulatory definition and user education. Fifth, this precedent reflects more than just fines; it reflects changes in culture and behavior: drivers need to understand that e-cigarettes should only be used in safe environments, not just for easy use at any time. Finally, from a public health perspective, the e-cigarette market is a complex ecosystem—it potentially offers opportunities to replace adult cigarettes, but it can also pose new safety risks (such as distraction while driving). Therefore, a “safe usage environment” is equally crucial in both regulation and industry self-regulation.
In summary, the ruling by the Cologne Higher Court of Justice, Germany, that operating an e-cigarette with a touchscreen while driving is illegal, marks a crucial intersection between traffic safety regulations and the development of e-cigarette devices. It marks the formal legal recognition of the function of e-cigarette devices, moving from “personal consumption” to “potential hazards in driving scenarios.” For e-cigarette brands like GUUTUU, adapting to these regulatory changes and proactively optimizing product design and user instructions could potentially gain an advantage in the future market. For users, it’s important to avoid operating any device with a touchscreen, including e-cigarettes, while driving to avoid breaking the law and ensure safety. In the future, regulations, design, and user education in the e-cigarette sector will enter a more mature and complex phase.
Tags: ceramic atomizer core, e‑hookah (electronic water pipe), flavored vape, guutuu vape.