Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the marketing of 20 ZYN nicotine pouch products through the premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) pathway following an extensive scientific review. This is the first time the agency has authorized products commonly referred to as nicotine pouches, which are small synthetic fiber pouches containing nicotine designed to be placed between a person’s gum and lip.
The FDA determined that the specific products receiving marketing authorization met the public health standard legally required by the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This standard considers the risks and benefits of products to the population as a whole.
“As a public health scientist and former Director of the Office of Science at FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, I couldn’t be more excited for public health with FDA’s decision today,” Matt Holman, vice president of U.S. Scientific Engagement and Regulatory Strategy at PMI said on X. “Authorizing products that can help the nearly 30 million smokers in the United States switch to a better form of nicotine has the potential to save countless lives.”
Among several key considerations, the agency’s evaluation showed that, due to substantially lower amounts of harmful constituents than cigarettes and most smokeless tobacco products, such as moist snuff and snus, the authorized products pose a lower risk of cancer and other serious health conditions than such products. The applicant also provided evidence from a study showing that a substantial proportion of adults who use cigarette and/or smokeless tobacco products completely switched to the newly authorized nicotine pouch products.
“To receive marketing authorizations, the FDA must have sufficient evidence that the new products offer greater benefits to population health than risks,” said Matthew Farrelly, Ph.D., director of the Office of Science in the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “In this case, the data show that these nicotine pouch products meet that bar by benefiting adults who use cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco products and completely switch to these products.”
Additionally, the FDA found that the applicant showed these nicotine pouch products have the potential to provide a benefit to adults who smoke cigarettes and/or use other smokeless tobacco products that is sufficient to outweigh the risks of the products, including to youth. As part of its evaluation, the FDA reviewed data regarding youth risk and found that youth use of nicotine pouches remains low despite growing sales in recent years. For example, the 2024 National Youth Tobacco Survey showed that 1.8% of U.S. middle and high school students reported currently using nicotine pouches.
“It’s critical that the manufacturer market these products responsibly to prevent youth use,” said Brian King, Ph.D., M.P.H., director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “While current data show that youth use remains low, the FDA is closely monitoring the marketplace and is committed to taking action, as appropriate, to best protect public health.”
While today’s actions permit these specific tobacco products to be legally marketed in the U.S. to adults 21 and older, it does not mean these tobacco products are safe, nor are they “FDA approved.” There is no safe tobacco product; youth should not use tobacco products and adults who do not use tobacco products should not start.
The FDA will closely monitor the marketing and use of these products. To reduce the potential for youth exposure to advertising of these products, the authorizations impose stringent marketing restrictions for digital, television, and radio, including measures to ensure ads are carefully targeted to adults ages 21 and older and the demographics of the audiences reached by the ads are tracked and measured by the manufacturer. The company also stated that they intend to implement additional measures to restrict youth access, reduce youth appeal, and limit youth exposure to their labeling and advertising, such as: not using mass-market advertising on radio and TV; employing actors/models for marketing that are no younger than 35 years old, or styled to appear under 35; and avoiding any content designed to target youth, including characters, images or themes. The agency may suspend or withdraw a marketing granted order issued under the PMTA pathway for a variety of reasons if the agency determines the continued marketing of a product no longer meets the necessary public health standard, such as if there is a notable increase in youth initiation.
The products for which the FDA issued marketing granted orders are the following, each with two nicotine strengths (3 milligrams and 6 milligrams): ZYN Chill, ZYN Cinnamon, ZYN Citrus, ZYN Coffee, ZYN Cool Mint, ZYN Menthol, ZYN Peppermint, ZYN Smooth, ZYN Spearmint and ZYN Wintergreen. Importantly, today’s actions are specific to these products only; the authorizations do not apply to any other nicotine pouch or other ZYN products. Additionally, the authorization does not allow the company to make reduced-risk claims about the authorized products, which would require a modified-risk tobacco product application.
Today’s actions are the latest of many the FDA has taken to ensure all new tobacco products marketed in the U.S. undergo science-based review and have received marketing authorizations by the agency. To date, the FDA has received applications for nearly 27 million products and has made determinations on more than 26 million of those applications. This includes authorization of other flavored oral tobacco products, including nicotine mints and chews in 2021 and mint smokeless tobacco in 2015. To find a list of tobacco products that may be legally marketed and sold in the U.S., visit the FDA’s Searchable Tobacco Products Database.
A federal judge in Texas sided with R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies in finding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) went beyond its authority by requiring packaging and advertising to contain 11 specific warnings.
U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker, in Tyler, Texas, blocked the FDA from enforcing a looming requirement that cigarette packages and advertisements contain graphic warnings illustrating the health risks of smoking. He said those warnings go above and beyond the nine that Congress specified when in 2009 it passed the Tobacco Control Act, which gave the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products and mandated adoption of the graphic warnings.
Barker said not only did the FDA adopt two extra warnings beyond the nine the law required, but it only used the exact text Congress required for two of the remaining nine.
The FDA argued it has the authority to adjust the format, type, and text of any required labels, but Barker said that power was limited, and even if the FDA was allowed to adjust the nine warnings, it could not add the extra two.
“Courts are not free to second-guess policy decisions expressed in the plain text of the congressional enactments,” Barker wrote.
The judge delayed the rule’s effective date pending further litigation, preventing the FDA from proceeding to enforce it starting in February 2026. It marked the second time Barker has blocked the FDA’s warning label rule. In 2022, the judge concluded the requirement violated the companies’ speech rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
The FDA is preparing to propose a rule to cap nicotine levels in cigarettes and certain other tobacco products to make them minimally or non-addictive. This effort aligns with the Biden administration’s broader public health goals to significantly reduce smoking rates, particularly among youth, and to curb tobacco-related illnesses and deaths. Tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., accounting for approximately 480,000 deaths annually.
The proposed rule, part of the FDA’s comprehensive tobacco control strategy, is expected to face strong opposition from the tobacco industry and some policymakers. Critics argue that the move could unintentionally boost the black market for cigarettes and may not address existing addiction among smokers. Proponents, however, emphasize the measure’s potential to save millions of lives and reduce healthcare costs in the long term.
This regulation, if implemented, would mark a historic step in tobacco control, as no other country has yet enforced nicotine limits in cigarettes to this degree. The FDA has been exploring such measures since 2009 when Congress gave it authority to regulate tobacco products under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. While the proposal is still in its early stages, public health advocates view it as a critical milestone in reducing the public health burden of smoking.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to eight online retailers and one manufacturer for selling and/or distributing unauthorized flavored, disposable e-cigarettes.
Some of the unauthorized products cited in the warning letters are marketed under brand names for disposable products, including Geek Bar and Lost Mary, according to the FDA. Other unauthorized products cited feature the names and/or images of celebrities.
The firms receiving these warning letters sold and/or distributed e-cigarettes in the United States that lack authorization from FDA to be legally marketed in the U.S., which is in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
In addition to the violations mentioned in the warning letters, the firms were warned to address any violations that are the same as, or similar to, those stated in the warning letter and to promptly take necessary actions to comply with the law.
Failure to promptly correct the violations can result in additional actions such as an injunction, seizure, and/or civil money penalty.
The U.S. Supreme Court will next week hear the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s defense of the agency’s rejection of two companies’ premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) to sell flavored vape products that it has determined pose health risks for young consumers.
The justices took up the FDA’s appeal filed after a lower court ruled that the agency had failed to follow proper legal procedures under federal law when it denied the applications to bring their nicotine-containing products to market.
The Supreme Court is due to hear the case in its next term, which begins in October, according to Reuters.
Two e-cigarette liquid makers, Triton Distribution and Vapetasia, filed premarket tobacco product applications in 2020 for products with flavors such as sour grape, pink lemonade, and crème brulee and names such as “Jimmy The Juice Man Strawberry Astronaut” and “Suicide Bunny Bunny Season.”
The FDA rejected the companies’ applications, along with more than 1 million other products.
Triton and Vapetasia in 2021 asked the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the FDA’s denial of their applications.
In January, the 5th Circuit ruled that the FDA had been arbitrary and capricious by denying the applications without considering plans by the companies to prevent underage access and use.
Ispire Technology and IKE Tech announced a successful pre-premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) for their age verification technology for electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).
According to an e-mailed release, the technology aims to prevent youth access while expanding adult market access to flavored PMTA-authorized products. IKE Tech is a joint venture among three leading technology and research companies Ispire and Touch Point Worldwide d/b/a Berify and Chemular Inc.
IKE Tech will submit a component PMTA, which would allow ENDS manufacturers to incorporate their blockchain-based age-gating solution if authorized. The FDA indicated potential priority review consideration and acceptance of a component PMTA. The company plans to complete the required studies in Q1 2025.
This critical regulatory milestone marks an essential step in the journey to provide an innovative, secure universal solution aimed at preventing youth access to ENDS and expanding the market for adults who choose to use flavored PMTA-authorized products, according to the release.
“The IKE Tech identity and age verification technology unlocks opportunities for adults who choose to use flavored vapor products while introducing a pioneering approach to reducing youth access and usage,” the release states.
Due to its innovative design, reliance on blockchain technology, and partnership with leading identity and age verification providers, the IKE Tech system is an advanced component that could be used — in any ENDS device — to ensure only authorized adult users can access vaping products.
FDA alignment on key points:
Component PMTA: IKE Tech will submit a PMTA for a component, as opposed to a finished tobacco product to be sold to consumers, and the FDA indicated it will accept such a component PMTA if all statutory requirements are met. Additionally, due to the fact this component employs novel point-of-use technology, the FDA indicated it will consider a request to grant the IKE Tech system priority review. If authorized, the component PMTA would allow ENDS manufacturers to use the IKE Tech system in their finished tobacco product PMTAs, as a plug-and-play age-gating solution, which may allow for the approval of a variety of flavored ENDS products.
Creation of Tobacco Product Master File (TPMF): IKE will create and file a TPMF for the IKE component. Once authorized, the component and TPMF can, subject to agreement, be available to ENDS device manufacturers for incorporation into products.
IKE Tech anticipates completing the required studies for the component PMTA for the IKE Tech system, including the Identity and Age Verification component in Q1 2025.
“Our commitment to harm reduction through innovation and our collaborative efforts with regulators are central to Ispire’s mission,” said Michael Wang, Co-CEO of Ispire. “We are proud to introduce technologies that are designed to responsibly support adult consumer choice while significantly reducing youth access. This technology represents our dedication to aligning with regulatory guidance and setting new standards for safer
President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to serve as the new secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The effects Kennedy will have on the nicotine market remain unclear. Kennedy must still be confirmed by Congress.
“For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health,” Trump posted. “The Safety and Health of all Americans is the most important role of any Administration, and HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives that have contributed to the overwhelming Health Crisis in this Country.”
As the leader of HHS, Kennedy will oversee the FDA, which regulates vaping, nicotine pouches, and all other nicotine and tobacco products through its Center for Tobacco Products.
Kennedy’s position on vaping, nicotine, and tobacco harm reduction (THR) remains an unknown. During the presidential campaign, Trump promised that, if elected, he would “save vaping” after meeting with Tony Abboud of the Vapor Technology Association.
“I saved Flavored Vaping in 2019, and it greatly helped people get off smoking,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform in September. “I raised the age to 21, keeping it away from the ‘kids.’ Kamala and Joe want everything banned, killing small businesses all over the country. I’ll save Vaping again!”
The end of Chevron deference could have ripple effects across the nicotine industry.
By Timothy S. Donahue
U.S. courts will no longer need to “humbly respect” how government agencies interpret the law. The end of Chevron deference means unelected officials will no longer have the leeway to subjectively decide what Congress intends when it passes regulatory legislation.
The court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the related case Relentless v. Department of Commerce will likely have far-reaching impacts on nearly every action government agencies take. For the nicotine industry, it could change how courts view the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) process. It could also impact the agency’s efforts to regulate menthol and lower the levels of allowable nicotine in combustible cigarettes.
“For far too long, unelected bureaucrats at the FDA have been making up the law to suit their ulterior agenda and … the Supreme Court has thankfully put a stop to it once and for all,” said Allison Boughner, vice president of the American Vapor Manufacturers Association, in a statement. “No longer will it be good enough for [prohibitionists] in Congress to write vague, Crayola language and then connive behind closed doors with FDA to impose arbitrary policies on the American public that could never withstand the light of day. [This] ruling is a stirring rebuke of FDA and, we hope, with more soon to follow in pending cases.”
In declaring the doctrine’s demise, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that agencies “have no special competence” in resolving statutory ambiguities—but courts do.
“Chevron is overruled,” wrote Justice Roberts in the Loper Bright decision. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] requires. Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help inform that inquiry.
“And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation while ensuring that the agency acts within it. But courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”
Agustin E. Rodriguez, a partner with Troutman Pepper, explained that “under the doctrine of Chevron deference, courts would defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute if the agency was charged with administering the statute in question and its interpretation was reasonable. However, the end of Chevron deference may alter that traditional thinking.”
Bryan Haynes, also a partner at Troutman Pepper, added, “The Supreme Court’s decision overruling Chevron in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case could affect federal courts’ overall outlook on agency interpretations, possibly making courts hesitant to defer to agencies as a general practice.”
The decision could potentially result in alterations to the FDA’s methods of regulating vaping products. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear its first-ever vaping case, Wages and White Lion Investments v. U.S. FDA, which is compelling because deferring to Chevron has been the standard for lower courts when deciding regulatory cases brought by manufacturers of nicotine products (the end of Chevron deference isn’t likely to directly impact the White Lion case, according to its attorneys).
Robert Burton, an expert with more than 11 years of experience in the U.S. vaping industry and current group scientific and regulatory director for the U.K.-based vaping company Plxsur, said another general concern is that now, federal agencies may have to put more resources into the additional legal challenges that they will likely face and divert staff away from review/approval processes.
“Agencies, such as FDA, may also have to look to improve their primary knowledge in those ‘gray areas’ to be able to demonstrate they actually have the knowledge and expertise rather than it being ‘assumed’ or deferred by judges based upon Chevron,” Burton explained. “I also can’t see anything changing soon; if anything, this will create a further backlog of court cases and delays in regulatory decisions based upon the potential for an agency to be challenged legally.”
How it started
The Chevron doctrine, based on the 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, held that courts should defer to the interpretations of “expert” federal agencies regarding ambiguous laws they are required to implement, as long as the agency interpretations are reasonable.
In many cases, what would be considered “reasonable” was also left to government agencies to decide because nonelected bureaucrats were often considered “experts” even though they had little to no experience in the industries they were regulating.
For 40 years, unelected officials were given latitude to decide on their own what Congress had intended when it wrote unclear laws—even if there were other sufficient interpretations that the courts could have considered. According to the New York Times, Chevron deference was applied in 70 Supreme Court decisions and 17,000 lower-court rulings during those years.
The plea to overturn the Chevron doctrine came to the court in two cases challenging a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that requires the herring industry to bear the costs of observers on fishing boats. Applying Chevron, both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the rule, finding it to be a reasonable interpretation of federal law.
The fishing companies brought their case to the Supreme Court, seeking the justices’ input on both the rule in question and the overruling of the Chevron doctrine. Roman Martinez, speaking on behalf of a group of fishing vessels, informed the justices that the Chevron doctrine undermines the courts’ responsibility to interpret the law and violates the federal law that governs administrative agencies, which calls for courts to independently review legal questions.
Under the Chevron doctrine, he observed, even if all nine Supreme Court justices agree that the fishing vessels’ interpretation of federal fishing law is better than the NMFS’ interpretation, they would still be required to defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it was reasonable. Such a result, Martinez concluded, is “not consistent with the rule of law.”
Chris Howard, executive vice president of external affairs and new product compliance for Swisher, parent to the vaping company E-Alternative Solutions, welcomed the ruling, saying that federal agencies have had too much power for decades.
“That ended with the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the longstanding Chevron doctrine,” said Howard. “The decision marks a significant shift in the judicial landscape, correcting the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary. It fundamentally alters how courts rule on agency statutory interpretation. As the majority states, courts will no longer be restrained by the need to provide deference.
“Instead, ‘Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires.’ This transformation will likely lead to significantly less regulatory flexibility and increased judicial scrutiny. The implications of this decision will resonate across industries, including the tobacco industry, influencing regulatory practices and shaping the future of administrative law. Regulatory overreach will become the exception as opposed to the norm and enable courts to fulfill their duty to interpret the law.”
Credit: Sean Pavone Photo
Immediate uproar
The end of Chevron deference is extremely far-reaching, with other industries, such as healthcare, likely to review previous decisions that have gone against them. Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, asserted that government regulators are best positioned to tackle highly technical subjects.
“This court has long understood Chevron deference to reflect what Congress would want, and so to be rooted in a presumption of legislative intent,” Kagan wrote. “Congress knows that it does not—in fact cannot—write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve and gaps that some other actor will have to fill.
“Today, the court flips the script: It is now ‘the courts (rather than the agency)’ that will wield power when Congress has left an area of interpretive discretion. A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. In recent years, this court has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies. The court has substituted its own judgment on workplace health for that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, its own judgment on climate change for that of the Environmental Protection Agency and its own judgment on student loans for that of the Department of Education.
“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar. It defends that move as one (suddenly) required by the (nearly 80-year-old) Administrative Procedure Act. But the act makes no such demand. Today’s decision is not one Congress directed. It is entirely the majority’s choice. And the majority cannot destroy one doctrine of judicial humility without making a laughingstock of a second.”
Several national healthcare groups made a joint statement expressing that Chevron deference protected the legal stability of public health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The groups claim that Chevron ensured that laws passed by Congress were interpreted and implemented by expert federal agencies such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
“As our amicus brief noted, large health programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, as well as issues related to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, are extremely complex, so it is key that decisions about how to interpret and implement relevant laws are made by experts at government agencies,” the statement reads. “Yet [this] majority opinion explicitly ends the use of this sensible doctrine.
“As leading organizations that work on behalf of people across the country who face serious, acute and chronic illnesses and many people who lack access to quality and affordable healthcare, we will continue to work to ensure that healthcare laws are implemented in ways that benefit public health.”
In its response to the Chevron ruling, the Public Health Law Center at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law stated that the Loper Bright ruling will “undoubtedly impact” the field of administrative law and implicate regulations that, in addition to promoting public health and safety, have served to protect consumers, workers, civil rights and the environment.
“Legal experts differ on the degree to which Loper Bright may wreak havoc on the federal administrative state; however, the forceful dissent written by Justice Kagan in this case and its companion case, Relentless v. Department of Commerce, should not be ignored. The dissent expressed grave concern that these decisions ‘will … cause a massive shock to the legal system, cast doubt on many settled constructions of statutes and threaten the interests of many parties who have relied on them for years.’
“In the absence of Chevron deference, the tobacco industry will doubtless feel emboldened to dispute any regulatory actions taken on its products. This includes e-cigarette manufacturers who will be eager for courts to undo FDA-issued premarket tobacco product application denial orders for many thousands of vape products.”
The Biden administration called the Chevron decision “yet another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backward,” adding that President Biden’s legal team would work with federal agencies to do “everything we can to continue to deploy the extraordinary expertise of the federal workforce.”
Reshma Ramachandran, a health policy expert and assistant professor at the Yale School of Medicine, said, “This term has been disastrous for public health in many ways.”
In the vaping industry, however, Tony Abboud, executive director of the Vapor Technology Association (VTA), said that the decision clearly bolsters what the VTA has been saying for years: the FDA and, specifically, the Center for Tobacco Products overstepped their authority when they chose to implement a de facto ban on flavored e-cigarettes in their deeply flawed implementation of the PMTA process.
“To be clear, it is [the] FDA’s responsibility under the law to create a regulation that clearly addresses the statutory standard of what is ‘appropriate for the protection of public health’ since the Tobacco Control Act is ambiguous on how that determination should be made. However, there is no question that the FDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by implementing what the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals called ‘a de facto ban on flavored e-cigarettes’ through its shifty implementation of the PMTA regulation by imposing new requirements on products after applications were already filed, ultimately ensuring their application’s demise.
“The Supreme Court’s decision elevates the importance of the Reagan-Udall Foundation’s findings after being convened at the request of the FDA commissioner, which specifically and clearly criticized the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products for failing to inform companies what must be provided under the regulation to demonstrate APPH [appropriate for the protection of the public health] and, as importantly, for failing to inform the public on how FDA is applying this standard.”
Beyond nicotine
The cannabis industry also will likely be impacted by the Chevron ruling. Asheville, NC-based attorney Rod Kight, a global resource and expert in cannabis law, said that the recent ruling by the SCOTUS that Chevron deference is dead is welcome news to the cannabis industry. With respect to the hemp sector, the death of Chevron means that unofficial positions taken about various cannabinoids and processes to produce hemp products by both the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the FDA on their respective websites and in letters to stakeholders do not hold any weight, at least not with the courts.
“In practical terms, this means that judges may not defer to federal agency positions and interpretations and, instead, must weigh their positions relative to the strength of the legal positions and interpretations put forth by the hemp industry,” explains Kight. “For instance, with respect to tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), the DEA has stated in two letters during the past year that ‘cannabis-derived THCA does not meet the definition of hemp under the CSA because upon conversion for identification purposes as required by Congress, it is equivalent to delta-9 THC.’
“As I have discussed in several blog posts and interviews, this is partially incorrect and is not exactly what ‘Congress required.’ Rather, Congress requires a post-decarboxylation test for hemp production (i.e., cultivation) but not for harvested hemp or hemp products.”
In the past, this type of unofficial guidance may have warranted a court’s deference to the DEA, even if an opposing position by a hemp industry participant was stronger and more well articulated. However, Kight said that, in the post-Chevron world, the DEA’s position will not hold any more weight with the court than a counter-position by an opposing litigant.
“The same thing applies to any number of other issues, from vapes to synthetic cannabinoids,” said Kight. “Hopefully, this exciting legal development will curb the appetite for DEA and FDA to take strong positions that are often unwarranted while helping the hemp industry to carve out favorable judicial rulings based on the best and most well-articulated positions.”
Abboud said the SCOTUS’ decision in Loper exposes the FDA’s improper regulation of flavored e-cigarettes. While the vaping cases that have gone before the SCOTUS were not explicitly decided on Chevron deference, it is hard to believe that the court will not look skeptically on the FDA’s prior “regulatory shenanigans and post-hoc justifications” laid bare by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the White Lion case.
“However, unlike the complete overturning of Chevron, it is likely that the court would issue a more limited ruling in the vape cases before it. That said, the real power of Loper is that it provides a template for new litigation against the FDA that is not limited to individual application decisions,” said Abboud. “This new regulatory challenge would reveal the full story of FDA’s tortured and disingenuous implementation of the ambiguous PMTA statutory provisions to ban flavored vaping products and possibly, as a result, spell the demise of the PMTA regulation.
“VTA is once again calling for the FDA to immediately suspend any further denials based on its existing process and instead create a clear and streamlined tobacco product standard that will allow independent companies of all sizes to get less harmful nicotine alternatives on the market as it is required to do under the law.”
Timothy Donahue is the assistant editor
of Tobacco Reporter. Since joining our team in
January 2013, he has become not only an
expert on the traditional tobacco business but
also a well-respected voice in the rapidly developing
vapor industry. Tim spends much of his time on the
road, attending conferences and interviewing industry representatives.
His networking skills, work ethic and quick mind
are valuable assets to our diverse audience.
The U.S. vaping industry is anxiously awaiting a decision from the highest court in the land.
By Timothy S. Donahue
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is poised to address a crucial case for the vaping industry that challenges the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision to block the marketing of flavored e-cigarette products. The FDA is contesting a lower court ruling that favored two vaping companies, which argue that the FDA unjustly rejected over a million premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) to sell flavors other than tobacco or menthol.
Under the agency’s PMTA pathway, companies must demonstrate that the marketing of a product would be appropriate for the protection of public health (APPH). When the FDA makes decisions about vaping products, it must take into consideration the risks and benefits to the entire population, not just users of the products.
The case, Wages and White Lion Investments v. U.S. FDA, is compelling because a major factor in predicting how SCOTUS will rule in the first vaping case to be heard by the high court, and potentially at least three others, is that in the wake of another SCOTUS ruling, courts no longer need to defer to agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous (see “Principle Response,” page 22).
Gregory Conley, an experienced industry attorney and director of legislative and external affairs at the American Vapor Manufacturers Association, said that the overturning of the Chevron deference could have a profound impact on the vaping and broader nicotine industries by reducing the deference courts previously granted to regulatory agencies like the FDA.
“Judges will now critically evaluate the FDA’s regulatory processes and interpretations of ambiguous statutes rather than assuming the agency knows best,” Conley said. “In simpler terms, for the first time since its creation, the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products will have to follow the law as written.”
Vape companies secured a legal victory when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Wages and White Lion (doing business as Triton Distribution) and Vapetasia when it overturned the orders denying the marketing of the companies’ flavored products. In its decision, the 5th Circuit condemned the FDA’s imposed requisites as “unfair,” noting that the agency “unexpectedly demanded” that the companies present studies demonstrating that flavored products would contribute to smoking cessation.
In January, the en banc panel of the 5th Circuit voted 9-5 to grant the petitions for review. The judges ruled that the FDA had been “arbitrary and capricious,” in violation of a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), by denying the applications without considering the companies’ plans to prevent underage access and use.
“Over several years, the [FDA] sent manufacturers of flavored e-cigarette products on a wild goose chase. First, the agency gave manufacturers detailed instructions for what information federal regulators needed to approve e-cigarette products. Just as importantly, FDA gave manufacturers specific instructions on what regulators did not need,” Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldham wrote in the majority opinion. “The agency said manufacturers’ marketing plans would be ‘critical’ to the success of their applications.
“And the agency promulgated hundreds of pages of guidance documents, hosted public meetings and posted formal presentations to its website—all with the (false) promise that a flavored-product manufacturer could, at least in theory, satisfy FDA’s instructions. The regulated manufacturers dutifully spent untold millions conforming their behavior and their applications to FDA’s say-so.
“Then, months after receiving hundreds of thousands of applications predicated on its instructions, FDA turned around, pretended it never gave anyone any instructions about anything, imposed new testing requirements without any notice, and denied all 1 million flavored e-cigarette applications for failing to predict the agency’s volte-face. Worse, after telling manufacturers that their marketing plans were ‘critical’ to their applications, FDA candidly admitted that it did not read a single word of the 1 million plans.”
The case began when the FDA rejected 55,000 applications to market flavored e-cigarettes in August 2021, including Triton’s, and said applicants would likely need to conduct long-term studies establishing their products’ benefits to win approval. The Office of the Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to review whether the 5th Circuit’s decision relied upon “legal theories that have been rejected by other courts of appeals that have reviewed materially similar FDA denial orders.”
The regulatory agency’s “legal theories” in Triton are based on administrative fairness and regulatory consistency, not Chevron deference. In most vaping industry lawsuits, appeals courts have supported the FDA, and manufacturers have sought appeals. In the Triton Distribution case, however, the FDA had to petition the court to review the 5th Circuit’s decision, which was based more on APA violations. SCOTUS is scheduled to hear the case sometime during its new session, which begins in October.
Conley explained that, while the end of Chevron signals a new openness by the Supreme Court to scrutinize federal agencies, the 5th Circuit’s opinion focused on matters of statutory interpretation, including procedural conduct and the FDA’s sudden imposition of new standards without proper notification.
“With or without Chevron deference, we believe that the ‘switcheroo’ pulled by the FDA was arbitrary, capricious and not in line with the Administrative Procedures Act,” said Conley. “This stance aligns with the court’s broader view that agencies should not have unchecked power to interpret and enforce ambiguous statutes without clear congressional authorization.”
Much of the lower court’s opinion is based on APA violations. The APA process for creating federal regulations has (typically) three main phases: initiating rulemaking actions, developing proposed rules and developing final rules. In practice, however, this process is often complex, requiring regulatory analysis, internal and interagency reviews, and opportunities for public comments.
At its most basic level, the APA requires that an agency create a draft proposed rule, review/approve it, publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and open a public comment period of at least 30 days. In a footnote to the Triton decision, the court characterized the FDA’s denial of all PMTAs for nontobacco-flavored e-cigarettes as a “de facto flavor ban” that circumvented the APA’s required notice-and-comment rulemaking process:
“(5) FDA’s categorical ban has other statutory problems. For example, the TCA states that FDA must follow notice-and-comment procedures before adopting a ‘tobacco product standard.’ See 21 U.S.C. § 387g(c)–(d). And Congress specifically called a ban on tobacco flavors a ‘tobacco product standard.’
“See id. § 387g(a)(1)(A) (referring to tobacco flavors, ‘including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke’); see also id. § 387g(a)(2) (cross-referencing notice-and-comment obligation to revise flavor standards). FDA unquestionably failed to follow § 387g’s notice-and-comment obligations before imposing its de facto ban on flavored e-cigarettes.”
Attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice told the justices that the 5th Circuit’s ruling “has far-reaching consequences for public health and threatens to undermine the TCA’s central objective of ‘ensuring that another generation of Americans does not become addicted’” to nicotine products.
In court papers, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told SCOTUS justices that the FDA has never adopted a categorical ban on flavored e-cigarette products. “Rather, it has recognized that, because such products pose a ‘known and substantial risk to youth,’ applicants bear a particularly high burden of proving a potential for benefit to adult smokers that could justify the risk,” she wrote.
Robert Burton, a longtime player in the U.S. vaping industry and current group scientific and regulatory director for the U.K.-based vaping company Plxsur, said that concerning the Triton case, decisions will now need to carry a significant weight of evidence on both sides.
“Without the Chevron precedent, it may come down to a judgment based upon who knows the market and consumer best and who understands ‘best’ what is in the interest of public health, but based upon facts and data rather than a gray area deferral,” said Burton.
Attorney Eric Heyer, who is representing Triton, expressed intense anticipation for the Supreme Court’s hearing of the case. He strongly criticized the FDA for imposing “surprise, after-the-fact … study requirements” and failing to adhere to the guidelines the agency itself had developed.
It is unclear whether SCOTUS will hear the three other vaping-related cases, which are also before it (Magellan Technology Inc. v. Food and Drug Administration; Lotus Vaping Technologies LLC v. Food and Drug Administration; and Logic Technology Development LLC v. Food and Drug Administration). In these cases, vaping manufacturers seek a review of their losses in FDA-issued marketing denial order appeals handed down by various other circuit courts.
Yolonda Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, has urged the high court to overturn the appeals court order, emphasizing that if allowed to stand, it could significantly harm public health, particularly that of children. Vaping companies have asserted that their products can mitigate the harm caused by smoking combustible cigarettes.
When the Triton decision was announced, Tony Abboud, executive director of the Vapor Technology Association, welcomed the decision as a “blistering indictment” of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products for its “intentional misleading” of the U.S. e-cigarette industry.
“The court was so stupefied by the FDA’s bad-faith efforts to reject all flavored e-cigarette products [that] it cited Shakespeare to illustrate the full extent of the FDA’s disingenuity, particularly after the court explained that the plaintiffs in that case provided scientific evidence that e-cigarettes ‘save lives,’” Abboud said. “The court also emphasized the dramatic and abrupt ‘FDA flip-flop,’ which led to the implementation of what the court called a ‘de facto ban’ on flavored e-cigarette products in the U.S.
“This was in addition to the voluminous jurisprudence cited by the court laying bare just how egregious the behavior of the FDA administrative state has been toward e-cigarette products and the consumers that use them. As the court stated, ‘No principle is more important when considering how the unelected administrators of the fourth branch of government treat the American people.’”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced a final rule raising the minimum age for certain restrictions on tobacco product sales. The requirements are in line with legislation signed in December 2019, which immediately raised the federal minimum age for the sale of tobacco products in the United States from 18 to 21.
Once implemented, the requirements are expected to help decrease underage tobacco sales.
Beginning Sept. 30, retailers must verify with photo identification the age of anyone under the age of 30 who is trying to purchase tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. Previously, this requirement applied to anyone under the age of 27. It’s important for retailers to request and examine photo IDs to verify age from anyone under 30, regardless of appearance, as research has shown that it is difficult for retailers to accurately determine the age of a customer from appearance alone.
Additionally, starting Sept. 30, retailers may not sell tobacco products via vending machines in facilities where individuals under 21 are present or permitted to enter at any time. Previously, this prohibition applied to facilities where individuals under 18 were present or permitted to enter at any time.
These changes, and the other changes made by the final rule, aim to maximize the public health impact of the original December 2019 legislation, according to an agency press release.
“Today’s rule is another key step toward protecting our nation’s youth from the health risks of tobacco products,” said Brian King, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “Decades of science have shown that keeping tobacco products away from youth is critical to reducing the number of people who ultimately become addicted to these products and suffer from tobacco-related disease and death.”
The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law on Dec. 20, 2019, increased the federal minimum age for selling tobacco products from 18 to 21 across the United States. Since then, it has been illegal to sell tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to anyone under 21. The law also directed the FDA to take action today, increasing the age of certain requirements for tobacco product sales, as explained above.
The agency also continues to provide retailers with resources to improve compliance with tobacco laws and regulations, including age of sale restrictions. For example, the FDA has developed a voluntary education program, “This is Our Watch,” which offers free resources to assist retailers in calculating the age of customers, including a digital age verification calendar and an age calculator app. Retailers can also find information on tobacco products that may be legally marketed in the United States through the Searchable Tobacco Products Database. Updated resources, including further information on these latest requirements, will be made available on the FDA’s website in the near future.
