Category: PMTA

Bidi Vapor Appeals MDO of Tobacco Bidi Stick

Bidi Vapor will appeal the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s January 2024 decision to deny the company’s premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) for Bidi Vapor’s “Classic” tobacco-flavored Bidi Stick electronic nicotine-delivery system.
Bidi Vapor has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to review the marketing denial order (MDO), which Bidi Vapor believes violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Bidi Vapor will also be seeking a stay of the MDO pending the outcome of the litigation.
“Bidi Vapor disagrees with the FDA’s decision and is taking immediate action accordingly,” said Bidi Vapor founder and CEO Niraj Patel in a statement. “In the meantime, it is important to note that the decision only affects the ‘Classic’ or tobacco-flavored Bidi Stick. The remaining ten Bidi Stick flavors are still under FDA scientific review and remain in distribution in the United States through Kaival Brands, subject to the FDA’s enforcement discretion.”
With its recent legal challenge, Bidi Vapor hopes to build on its record of successfully contesting adverse FDA decisions. In August 2022, the 11th Circuit set aside the original MDOs issued for its 10 nontobacco-flavored products. That ruling put the 10 PMTAs back into scientific review and allowed those flavors to remain available for sale pursuant to the FDA’s compliance policy for deemed tobacco products. During this evaluation period, the 10 nontobacco-flavored products are still under FDA enforcement discretion.
January 29, 2024
FDA Moves PMTA Finish Date to June 30

Credit: Postmodern Studio
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration now states that it will complete all covered marketing applications by June 30. In its latest court-ordered status report, the agency stated that continued review is necessary in light of recent judicial decisions, including the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Fontem US.
“Further, several of these remaining applications present complex scientific issues that require careful review and consideration.
In the Fontem case, the court’s unanimous decision in Fontem US v. FDA upheld the regulatory agency’s denial of Fontem’s application to market flavored vaping products, in line with prior D.C. Circuit precedent but rejected the FDA’s denial of Fontem’s applications for unflavored products.
The agency stated that it was also facing challenges from manufacturers that filed premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) that made amendments to their applications after several legal decisions were handed down by courts.
“Many of these amendments contain substantial data and scientific explanation,” the agency wrote. “The amendments range from a few pages to hundreds of pages and were received on a rolling basis, with the most recent 2023 amendment being filed in December 2023.”
Also, on Jan. 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the FDA acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in rejecting the premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA) of Wages and White Lion Investments, doing business as Triton Distribution, and Vapetasia for approval to sell their products in the United States.
The 9-5 decision by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit reversed a July 2022 decision by a three-judge panel of that court.
The agency “sent manufacturers of flavored e-cigarette products on a wild goose chase,” telling them what would be needed to approve their products, and then denying all applications, the court said in an opinion by Judge Andrew S. Oldham. The FDA “never gave petitioners fair notice that they needed to conduct long-term studies on their specific flavored products,” Oldham wrote.
The regulatory agency is under court order to file regular status reports on the agency’s review of pending PMTAs for new tobacco products that were on the market as of Aug. 8, 2016.
For such new tobacco products to be lawfully marketed in the United States, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires the FDA to complete a substantive review of the PMTA for each new tobacco product and issue a marketing granted order authorizing the sale of the product.
The court order stems from litigation filed by health groups against the FDA seeking a court-imposed deadline for finalizing the review of the PMTAs that were filed with the agency by Sept. 9, 2020.
The court-imposed deadline to complete the agency’s review was originally Sept. 9, 2021, which the FDA could not meet due to the extremely large number of PMTAs filed by manufacturers.
The most recent and FDA’s seventh status report was filed on Oct. 23, 2023. Specifically, in these reports, the FDA provides an update on the progress to finalize the agency’s review of pending PMTA “covered applications.”
A “covered application” is for new electronic cigarette/vapor products that were on the market as of Aug. 8, 2016, which had a PMTA filed with the FDA by Sept. 9, 2020, are sold under the brand names of Juul, Vuse, Njoy, Logic, Blu, Smok, Suorin, or Puff Bar, and reach 2 percent or more of the total retail sales volume in NielsenIQ’s various retail e-cigarette sales reports.
The agency also stated that it now expects to take action on 94 percent of covered applications by March 31. The FDA stated that it would file another status report on or before April 22.
January 22, 2024
FDA Denies Marketing of Bidi Stick

Image: tashatuvango
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a marketing denial order to Bidi Vapor for its Bidi Stick Classic e-cigarette. This product is a closed-system, disposable, tobacco-flavored e-cigarette device.
“FDA has a key role to protect the public from the dangers of tobacco use,” said Matthew Farrelly, director of the Office of Science within the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). “Integral to that role, our tobacco application review process relies on scientific evidence that demonstrates a product provides a net benefit to public health that outweighs the known risks. The science in this application did not show that.”
The FDA evaluates premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) based on a public health standard that considers the benefits (e.g., benefit from adult users of more harmful tobacco products completely switching) and risks (e.g., initiation among youth) of the product to the population as a whole. After reviewing the company’s PMTA, the FDA determined that the application lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate that permitting marketing of the product would be appropriate for the protection of the public health, which is the standard legally required by the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Specifically, evidence submitted by the applicant did not demonstrate an overall net benefit to people who use tobacco products and lacked sufficient evidence to address health risks.
“Bidi Vapor is disappointed by the FDA’s decision and is currently reviewing the opinion based on its merits,” said Niraj Patel, CEO of Bidi Vapor. “In the meantime, the decision only affects our Classic, or tobacco-flavored, product. Our remaining 10 flavors are still under scientific review and available for sale. At this time, we are investigating legal remedies and expect to have updates in the coming days. For now, we ask that our wholesale and retail partners direct their questions to our sales representatives.”
“The center has made considerable progress in reviewing the massive volume of tobacco product applications submitted to the agency, thanks to the tireless efforts of our dedicated legion of civil servant scientists,” said Brian King, director of the CTP. “The center remains committed to processing submitted applications as expeditiously as possible while ensuring the utmost scientific integrity of the reviews.”
To date, the FDA has authorized 23 tobacco-flavored e-cigarette products and devices. The distribution or sale of unlawfully marketed products is subject to compliance and enforcement action.
January 22, 2024
Smok Appeals Marketing Denial Orders

Image: Wasan
China-based Shenzhen IVPS, the parent to Smok brand vaping devices, has appealed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s marketing denial orders (MDOs) for six of the company’s open-system vaping devices.
IVPS filed the appeal with the New Orleans, Louisiana-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and was joined in the suit by a Dallas, Texas-based distributor of the Smok products that were denied marketing.
The FDA claimed that it had issued the MDOs for the premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) for the Smok products because the applications “failed to provide sufficient data to characterize constituent delivery, product stability and product abuse liability.” The agency also stated that Smok failed to provide a specific e-liquid, and consumers could use any e-liquid in the devices.
Shenzhen IVPS challenges those assertions, saying it “invested more than $30 million in its applications, which totaled well over 600,000 pages in all, and collaborated with the world’s leading laboratories to conduct robust harmful and potentially harmful constituent aerosol testing, in vitro toxicology testing and toxicological analysis, accelerated and 24-month storage and stability testing, and rigorous clinical pharmacokinetic studies to test the products’ potential abuse liability profiles,” according to a press release.
“FDA is using isolated data from testing of the devices with e-liquid formulations that the products’ instruction manuals specifically warn are not compatible with these devices and ignoring the overwhelmingly positive toxicological and safety profile of these products,” said Shenzhen IVPS CEO Welfer Ouyang.
On Jan. 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the FDA acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in rejecting PMTAs of Wages and White Lion Investments, doing business as Triton Distribution, and Vapetasia for approval to sell their products in the United States.
The 9-5 decision by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit reversed a July 2022 decision by a three-judge panel of that court.
The agency “sent manufacturers of flavored e-cigarette products on a wild goose chase,” telling them what would be needed to approve their products and then denying all applications, the court said in an opinion by Judge Andrew S. Oldham. The FDA “never gave petitioners fair notice that they needed to conduct long-term studies on their specific flavored products,” Oldham wrote.
January 22, 2024
VTA: MDOs Continue ‘De-Facto’ Flavor Ban
Tony Abboud, director of the Vapor Technology Association.
When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) issued marketing denial orders (MDOs) for Suorin and Blu PLUS+ e-cigarette products, Tony Abboud, executive director of the Vapor Technology Association (VTA), said the decision was just the latest installment of the FDA and CTP’s efforts to implement its de-facto ban on e-cigarettes in the U.S.
“The constant refrain from CTP is that e-cigarette manufacturers are not providing ‘sufficient scientific evidence’ in their PMTAs, yet CTP refused to answer the Reagan-Udall Foundation’s most fundamental criticism of CTP’s entire regulatory process: that CTP has not clearly articulated what is required to prove what is appropriate for the protection of the public health (APPH) or how it is interpreting what is APPH,” Abboud stated in a release.
He stated that the FDA has failed to objectively define the APPH standard while simultaneously using it to deny marketing authorization to critical smoking cessation and harm-reduction products, which is a “gross overreach” for any governmental institution whose mandate is to follow the science.
“Courts have found that the process has become ‘arbitrary and capricious’ in practice, with CTP leadership choosing on a case-by-case basis how the standard ought to be defined,” he stated. “Meanwhile, companies are simply trying to do the right thing by complying with and adhering to the PMTA process set forth by the FDA.”
Abboud stated that the actions of the FDA and CTP do nothing to protect public health or help Americans who smoke. “VTA once again calls on CTP to reverse course on its misguided actions and restore scientific integrity to its regulatory and decision-making process. Enough is enough,” he wrote.
January 21, 2024
FDA Denies Marketing of Suorin, Blu Plus+
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued marketing denial orders (MDOs) to Shenzhen Youme Information Technology Co. Ltd. for two Suorin brand e-cigarette products. It also issued Fontem US, LLC MDOs for its Blu PLUS+ brand e-cigarette products.
“Thorough scientific review of tobacco products applications is a key pillar of FDA’s comprehensive regulatory approach,” said Brian King, director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). “It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that sufficient scientific evidence is included in an application to meet the necessary public health standard required by law. In these cases, such evidence was lacking.”
The companies must not market or distribute these products in the United States or they risk FDA enforcement action. The companies may submit new applications for the products that are subject to these MDOs, according to an agency press release.
The FDA denied Suorin Air refillable vaporizers in various colors and an empty refillable cartridge. The FDA stated that Suorin Air’s empty cartridges would allow consumers to fill the cartridge with an e-liquid purchased separately.
“The applications submitted by Shenzhen Youme Information Technology Co. Ltd. lacked sufficient evidence regarding abuse liability, which is the ability of a tobacco product to promote continued use and the development of addiction and dependence,” the release states.
SMOK recently had 22 products denied, including devices, pods, atomizers, and cartridges. It was the first time the agency has denied strictly hardware products from one company en mass. The products were denied because they were submitted without a specific e-liquid to be used with the devices, according to the FDA.
The denied Blu PLUS+ products include a battery and several prefilled e-liquid pods:

blu PLUS+ Battery
blu PLUS+ Carolina Bold 2.0%
blu PLUS+ Classic Tobacco 1.2%
blu PLUS+ Classic Tobacco 2.4%
blu PLUS+ Gold Leaf 1.2%
blu PLUS+ Gold Leaf 2.4%
blu PLUS+ Menthol 1.2%
blu PLUS+ Menthol 2.4%
“Among other deficiencies in their applications, Fontem US, LLC failed to include sufficient ingredient information, harmful and potentially harmful constituent (HPHC) yield quantities, and abuse liability information.,” the FDA stated. “In addition, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the flavored new products have a potential to benefit adult smokers, in terms of complete switching or significant cigarette use reduction, that would outweigh the risk to youth.
The FDA also issued MDOs for additional blu PLUS+ products not listed above. The regulatory only publicly names products that the FDA or the manufacturer has confirmed to be currently marketed to avoid the release of confidential commercial information.
January 19, 2024
U.S. FDA Issues MDOs for SMOK
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued marketing denial orders (MDOs) to Shenzhen IVPS Technology Co., Ltd for 22 SMOK vaping hardware products.
The denied products include devices, pods, atomizers, and cartridges. It’s the first time the agency has denied strictly hardware products from one company en mass.
The products were denied because they were submitted without a specific e-liquid to be used with the devices, according to the FDA. “The denied SMOK e-cigarette products are not sold with an e-liquid. A consumer instead adds their separately purchased e-liquid into the device,” the agency wrote. “Therefore, these SMOK products have the potential to be used with any e-liquid on the market and available to the consumer, which could include tobacco-flavored and non-tobacco-flavored e-liquids.”
The products receiving MDOs include:

SMOK OSUB ONE Device
SMOK OSUB ONE RPM Cartridge
SMOK RPM DC 0.8 Ω MTL Atomizer
SMOK OSUB ONE RPM Cartridge 3 Pack
SMOK RPM DC 0.8 Ω MTL Atomizer 5 Pack
SMOK Nfix Device
Nfix DC 0.8 Ω MTL Pod
SMOK POZZ Device
SMOK POZZ DC 0.8 Ω Pod
SMOK RPM 40 Device
SMOK RPM Empty Standard Cartridge
SMOK RPM Empty Nord Cartridge
SMOK RPM Mesh 0.4 Ω Atomizer
SMOK Nord DC 0.8 Ω MTL Atomizer
SMOK SCAR-P3 Device
SMOK SCAR-P3 Empty RPM 2 Cartridge
SMOK SCAR-P3 Empty RPM Cartridge
SMOK PRM 2 Mesh 0.16 Ω Atomizer
SMOK RPM Mesh 0.4 Ω Atomizer
SMOK Nord 2 Device
SMOK Nord 2 RPM Cartridge
SMOK Nord 2 Nord Cartridge
After reviewing the company’s PMTAs, the FDA determined that the applications lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate that permitting the marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of public health, which is the standard legally required by the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. More specifically, the applicant failed to provide sufficient data to characterize constituent delivery, product stability, and product abuse liability.
“Science is a cornerstone of FDA’s tobacco product review process, and CTP remains committed to evaluating applications based on a public health standard that considers the risks and benefits of the tobacco product to the population as a whole,” said Brian King, director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate that marketing a new tobacco product is appropriate for the protection of the public health. In this case, the applicant failed to provide this evidence.”
January 16, 2024
Retailers Face Civil Money Penalties

The retailers selling illegal flavored disposable vapes are under scrutiny. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued complaints for civil money penalties (CMPs) against 22 retailers for the illegal sale of Elf Bar/EB Design.
The FDA previously warned each retailer in the form of a warning letter to stop selling unauthorized tobacco products, according to the agency. During follow-up inspections, the FDA observed the retailers had not corrected the violations, which resulted in the civil money penalty actions.
“The FDA has been abundantly clear that we are committed to using the full scope of our authorities, as appropriate, to hold those who break the law accountable,” said Brian King, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). “These retailers were duly warned of what could happen if they failed to correct their violations. They chose inaction and will now face the consequences.”
The complaints seek the maximum civil money penalty of $19,192 for a single violation from each retailer. While the FDA has issued civil money penalty complaints to retailers for selling unauthorized tobacco products in the past, this is the first time the agency is seeking CMPs for the maximum amount against retailers for selling illegal flavored disposable vapes.
The retailers can pay the penalty, enter into a settlement agreement, request an extension of time to file an answer to the complaint or file an answer and request a hearing. Those that do not take action within 30 days after receiving the complaint risk a default order imposing the full penalty amount.
Courtesy: US FDA
In addition to the CMP complaints, today the FDA announced an additional 168 warning letters to brick-and-mortar retailers for illegally selling Elf Bar/EB Design products. These warning letters were the result of a coordinated nationwide retailer inspection effort conducted throughout the month of August, according to the agency.
Warning letter recipients have 15 working days to respond with the steps they have taken to correct the violation and ensure compliance with the law. Failure to promptly correct the violations can result in additional FDA actions such as injunction, seizure or civil money penalties.
“We continue to monitor closely all those in the supply chain, including retailers, for compliance with federal law,” said Ann Simoneau, director of the Office of Compliance and Enforcement in the CTP. “This includes follow-up inspections and surveillance of those who have received a warning letter, and taking additional action, as appropriate, to enforce the law.”
September 28, 2023
Esco Bar Challenges FDA Rejection

Credit: Waldemarus
Pastel Cartel, manufacturer for Esco Bar, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s refuse-to-accept (RTA) decision for over 100 products included in multiple premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) filed by the company, according to Vaping360.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. It alleges that the FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it issued an RTA for the PMTAs.
Esco Bar is seeking: a preliminary injunction staying the RTA orders until the case is decided; a judgment finding that the RTAs violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution (due process and the Fifth Amendment); and a final judgment setting aside the RTA orders and remanding the company’s PMTAs back to the FDA for further review.
September 7, 2023
‘FDA Botched Review’

Image: Tobacco Reporter archive
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration failed to conduct a proper analysis before rejecting premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) submitted by Fontem U.S. for certain vaping products, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found on Aug. 29.
The court upheld the regulatory agency’s denial of Fontem’s application to market flavored vaping products but rejected the FDA’s denial of Fontem’s application for unflavored products.
“While the FDA identified multiple ‘deficiencies’ [in Fontem’s application], it failed to analyze the trade-offs necessary to make a public health finding,” the judges wrote in their ruling. “Nor did the agency explain how the specific deficiencies relate to its overall conclusion that Fontem failed to demonstrate its unflavored products were appropriate for the protection of public health. The agency’s denial therefore failed to comport with the requirements of the Tobacco Control Act.”
The FDA’s failure to correctly apply the public health inquiry to Fontem’s unflavored products led it to make another serious error, according to the court. In its initial deficiency letter, the FDA requested certain information from Fontem, thereby indicating such information would be sufficient for the agency to approve Fontem’s products.
But in its denial order, the agency changed its tune, reproaching Fontem for failing to provide information that the agency had never explicitly sought.
“Shifting the regulatory goal posts without explanation is arbitrary and capricious,” the judges wrote. “By indicating in its deficiency letter that Fontem could resolve issues with its applications by providing specific information, the FDA represented such information would be sufficient to secure approval.”
August 30, 2023