FDA Faces Lawsuit Over Delay in Reviewing E-Cigs
Several anti-smoking groups and doctors filed a lawsuit in Maryland federal court on Tuesday challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision to delay its review of e-cigarettes.
March 28, 2018 at 02:06 PM
4 minute read
Several anti-smoking groups and doctors have filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision to delay its review of e-cigarettes.
The suit, filed Tuesday in a federal court in Maryland, accuses the agency of exceeding its authority and not following proper procedure last year when it pushed back to 2022 the deadline by which e-cigarette makers must submit their products for review. Plaintiffs in the suit argue that the delay harms public health, particularly for young people because it leaves them vulnerable to kid-friendly e-cigarettes and cigars that may lead to a lifetime of tobacco addiction.
Those plaintiffs include seven advocacy groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association, as well as five physicians.
“Were the FDA to perform its statutory responsibilities, its premarket review should remove from the commercial marketplace those tobacco products that pose the greatest public health risks, particularly those targeted at children and teenagers,” the complaint stated. “Postponing premarket review prolongs the period during which regulators, consumers and public health professionals are all denied the basic facts needed to make informed judgments.”
A spokesperson for the FDA declined to comment, citing pending litigation. He pointed out, however, that the agency since early last year has been engaged in a comprehensive, long-term campaign to reduce tobacco-related diseases and death, including a reduction in the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.
In a tweet posted Tuesday, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said: “FDA shares the belief that tobacco products, including e-cigs, should never be marketed to, sold to, or used by kids and the agency will be taking new steps soon to help keep kids from using tobacco products.” Neither that tweet nor later ones elaborated on these “new steps.”
E-cigarettes are devices that typically deliver nicotine, flavorings and other additives to users through an inhaled aerosol and are often referred to as “vaping” because of the smoke-like substance emitted during exhalation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
According to the complaint in this suit, the FDA was authorized to regulate the products in 2016. Although scientists still are not fully informed about e-cigarettes' effect on health, enough is known to justify efforts to prevent e-cigarette use by young people, according to the CDC.
A 2016 U.S. Surgeon General's report found that e-cigarettes are now the form of tobacco most commonly used by youth in the United States. Anti-smoking advocates argue that this is the case because manufacturers specifically market them to kids by selling them in a wide array of candy and other flavors, including chocolate, gummy bear and cotton candy. The taste of e-cigarettes is one of the most widely reported reasons why young people use them, according to the CDC.
The public health groups' lawsuit is brought under the federal Tobacco Control Act, the 2009 law that established FDA oversight of tobacco products, and the Administrative Procedure Act. It asks the court to prevent the agency from pushing back the review deadline.
The FDA “offered no meaningful justification for ripping a hole in the statutory framework by exempting, for more than half a decade, newly deemed products from premarket review—review FDA previously described as 'central' to the regulatory scheme Congress enacted for tobacco products,” the complaint stated.
The plaintiffs are represented, on a pro bono basis, by partner Kelly Dunbar and senior associates Lynn Eisenberg, Kevin Lamb and Beth Neitzel, all in the Washington, D.C., office of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, as well as by lawyers at Democracy Forward Foundation and the legal staff of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The defendants have until next month to respond to the allegations.
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
© 2025 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 AllSkadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute read'Lack of Independence' or 'Tethered to the Law'? Witnesses Speak on Bondi
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 2With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 3Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 4Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
- 5Top 10 Developments, Lessons, and Reminders of 2024
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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