BACKGROUND-AIM:
Novel nicotine products - including e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco products (HTPs) - are rapidly reshaping European markets. This study aimed to establish a baseline for monitoring nicotine policy developments across Europe and to compare national regulatory frameworks using a standardized nicotine policy scale.

METHODS:
Within the Joint Action Prevent Non-Communicable Diseases, a nicotine policy scale was developed to assess seven regulatory domains: regulatory context (15 points), product characteristics (15), labelling and appearance (15), availability (15), advertising/promotion/sponsorship (15), price regulation (10), and nicotine-free environments (15), for a maximum of 100 points. Structured online questionnaires were completed by national experts in summer 2025. 22 of 25 participating countries responded (88%).

RESULTS:
Scores across countries varied widely (mean 57/100). Norway, which bans all three product categories, scored 100, followed by Lithuania (86.7) and Belgium (82.5). The weakest frameworks were observed in Croatia (17.0), Greece (31.4) and Romania (35.9). The greatest regulatory divergence occurred for nicotine pouches: Belgium, Lithuania and Norway prohibit them entirely, while several countries reported minimal or no regulation. By contrast, e-cigarettes and HTPs are more aligned with EU-level standards, though important gaps persist in enforcement and product-specific rules. Wide variation was noted in flavour regulation, with some countries restricting products to tobacco flavours only and others allowing a broad range of characterizing flavours that may appeal to youth. Labelling provisions are inconsistent: textual warnings are common for e-cigarettes and HTPs, whereas pictorial warnings and plain packaging remain rare and many jurisdictions fail to apply labelling rules to nicotine pouches. Advertising bans were strongest in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Slovenia (15/15). Price regulation was uneven; only 13 countries tax nicotine pouches and excise rates vary substantially. Availability rules generally set a minimum purchase age of 18 years, yet online sales often rely on weak self-declaration systems.

CONCLUSIONS:
The nicotine policy scale reveals a highly fragmented European regulatory landscape for emerging nicotine products. Norway demonstrates the most comprehensive approach, while Croatia shows the weakest regulatory framework. By consolidating complex policy information into a structured and comparable metric, the scale complements existing tools such as the tobacco control scale and captures regulatory dimensions not previously assessed. It offers a valuable baseline for cross-national comparison, identifies critical regulatory gaps and supports ongoing monitoring of nicotine policy developments across Europe.