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
An e-cigarette. Photo Credit: Credit: joseluisserranoariza/Shutterstock.com
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
© 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 AllCars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readDemocratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
7 minute readBig Law Communications, Media Attorneys Brace for Changes Under Trump
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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