Vaping Group Sues FDA to Push Back Application Deadline, Establish Guidelines for Companies
The plaintiffs claim the FDA pushing up the deadline to submit the premarket applications to May 11, 2020, is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
August 15, 2019 at 06:03 PM
4 minute read
A vaping industry association and a vaping company filed a suit against the Food and Drug Administration in Kentucky federal court seeking to push back the May 2020 deadline for premarket tobacco applications with the agency.
The Washington, D.C.-based Vapor Technology Association and Lexington, Kentucky-based Vapor Stockroom claim the FDA pushing up the deadline to submit the premarket applications to May 11, 2020, is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The suit, Vapor Technology Association vs. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
The plaintiffs are also seeking an injunction from the court requiring FDA to establish a proposed and final rule governing the submission of premarket tobacco applications, which would allow in-house counsel to better guide the companies through the process.
Azim Chowdhury, a partner at Keller and Heckman in Washington, D.C., who is not involved with the lawsuit, explained the applications require years of data and expensive testing.
“Companies have relied on these deadlines. So now, you can’t just change that and expect studies to be done in less than 10 months,” Chowdhury said.
Chowdhury explained only two tobacco products have ever been approved after the submission of an application: Snus and IQOS, a Philip Morris product.
He said those products had years of data to submit to the FDA. Meanwhile, those in the vaping industry, which has existed for about 10 years, do not have the thorough data the FDA is seeking for the applications.
In July 2017, according to the suit, the deadline for vaping products was extended to Aug. 8, 2022. In June of this year, the deadline was moved up to May 11, 2020.
“FDA failed to give any notice to the public, including industry stakeholders, or to allow public comment prior to proposing the grossly accelerated deadline,” the plaintiffs said in the complaint.
Beyond tightening up the deadline, the plaintiffs say the FDA has not created final rules for the application submissions.
“Throughout 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, FDA publicly and repeatedly told all stakeholders that FDA did not have the rules, guidance, and standards in place for companies to move forward with [premarket tobacco] application submissions,” the plaintiffs said.
In June, the FDA issued nonbinding final guidance for vaping and e-cigarette companies on what should be included in the applications. However, there is not a final rule and that guidance may be subject to change.
“Unfortunately, the final guidance document contains significant changes regarding recommended product testing from the draft version published earlier and fails to definitively specify what evidence is or is not required for an acceptable [premarket tobacco application],” the plaintiffs say in the complaint.
Chowdhury said many companies have been waiting to begin the applications because they have been without final and binding guidance on what an acceptable application looks like.
“The reason companies have waited to initiate testing is because FDA could change something in their non-binding guidance documents,” Chowdhury said. “If they only tested for the original set of chemicals, they would have to redo the testing.”
Should the suit be unsuccessful, Chowdhury said, every e-cigarette and vaping company will have to begin their application process. All vaping products are subject to submitting applications.
However, Chowdhury said FDA does have the discretion of which companies to enforce the deadline.
“What that says to me is that come May 11, 2020, FDA can choose who to come after first or who to come after at all,” Chowdhury explained.
He said it is likely FDA’s enforcement priorities would be on those companies who target their products to minors.
A spokesperson for the FDA said it does not comment on possible, pending or ongoing litigation.
Vapor Technology Association and Vapor Stockroom are represented by Robert P. Johnson of Thompson Hine in Cincinnati; Eric N. Heyer and Joseph A. Smith of Thompson Hine in Washington, D.C.; and Stephanie M. Chmiel of Thompson Hine in Columbus, Ohio. Heyer, who was referred to for comment by another one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, declined to comment beyond the complaint.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs AI Transforms Drug Development, FDA Is Scrambling to Figure Out Guardrails
5 minute readElection Outcome Could Spur Policy U-Turns Across Employment Landscape
6 minute readPolicy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readInside Track: Lawyers for Big Tech Give Harris Benefit of Doubt, Despite Pummeling They Took Under Biden
Trending Stories
- 1Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 2The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
- 3Law Firm Accused of Barratry for Allegedly Soliciting Crash Victims
- 4Carlton Fields Downsizes in Move to New Atlanta Office
- 5Trump's Selection of Zeldin to Head EPA Draws Surprise, Little Hope of Avoiding Deregulation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250