Exploring possible point-of-sale restrictions for vapes and nicotine pouches: cross-sectional surveys with adults and adolescents in the UK

Introduction Within the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, the UK Government is considering restricting retail displays of vaping and other nicotine products to discourage youth uptake. We explored how adult nicotine users and adolescents responded to conventional and restricted displays. Methods Two UK-wide cross-sectional online surveys were conducted April-June 2026, with current and former adult nicotine users (n=2,851), and adolescents (11-17 years; n=2,123). Participants rated images of vape and nicotine pouch point-of-sale (POS) displays (two conventional, two restricted) across 10 items. Other measures included demographics, smoking/vaping/nicotine pouch use, vaping susceptibility, and product choice. Results Ratings of two conventional POS images were consistently favourable. Two restricted POS images were almost exclusively rated unfavourably. GEE analyses, controlling for demographics and behaviour, indicated that a display with standardised white packs (versus a conventional display) consistently had lower odds of favourable ratings (adults range:0.13-0.31; adolescents range:0.11-0.32). A fully covered display had even lower odds of favourable ratings on all items (adults range:0.06-0.19; adolescents range:0.05-0.10). Presented with hypothetical restricted displays, most adults using nicotine remained consistent with their product choice. Favourable ratings of conventional displays were positively associated with adolescents' vaping susceptibility. Those favourably rating a large, branded display were more likely to be susceptible than those giving unfavourable/neutral ratings (AOR=2.73, 95%CI [2.16-3.45] p<0.001). No association was found between favourable ratings of restricted displays and susceptibility. Conclusion Restricting POS displays could reduce positive messaging around vaping and adolescent susceptibility. The potential impact of restrictions on adult users' perceptions of harm and accessibility should be considered.