FDA Revokes Marketing Denial Order for JUUL E-cigarettes

Regulations by 2FIRSTS.ai
Jun.07.2024
FDA Revokes Marketing Denial Order for JUUL E-cigarettes
FDA lifts sales refusal order on JUUL, returning application to pending status after first-ever Marketing Denial Order revocation.

Editor's note: On June 6, local time, the US FDA announced the voluntary withdrawal of the Marketing Denial Order (MDO) for JUUL, allowing the application to return to pending status. This is reportedly the first time the FDA has voluntarily withdrawn a Marketing Denial Order (MDO).

 

On June 6th, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States released a press release announcing updates on its review of the Premarket Tobacco Product Applications (PMTAs) submitted by JUUL Labs, Inc.

 

On June 23, 2022, the FDA issued Marketing Denial Orders (MDOs) for all products of JUUL Labs, Inc. that were being sold in the United States at the time. The FDA determined that these applications lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxic characteristics of the products, and failed to demonstrate that the marketing of the products met the public health standards required by law. When announcing the issuance of the MDOs, the FDA stated that insufficient and conflicting data on genotoxicity and potential harmful chemicals leaching from the company's proprietary pods prevented the agency from completing a comprehensive toxicological review of the products.

 

On July 5, 2022, the FDA administratively suspended MDOs (medical device orders) after determining that certain scientific issues required additional review. Since then, the FDA has conducted additional reviews and substantial reviews in multiple areas, including toxicology, engineering, social sciences, and clinical pharmacology.

 

Meanwhile, since the administrative pause of MDOs in 2022, the FDA has gained more experience in various scientific issues related to e-cigarette products and has seen new litigation outcomes in MDOs cases involving other manufacturers' e-cigarette products. Some of these court rulings have established new precedents and provided information for the FDA's product review methods to uphold its commitment to making appropriate final decisions based on science and law.

 

Today, on June 6th, the FDA revoked the MDOs issued to JUUL Labs, Inc. in June 2022. This action was partly due to new legal precedents and FDA's review of information provided by the applicant. Revoking the MDOs is neither an authorization nor a denial, and does not indicate whether the application is likely to be authorized or denied. Revoking the MDOs returns the application to a pending status for substantive review by the FDA. FDA regulations severely limit the information the agency can disclose about pending applications.

 

Once accepted and filed by the FDA, applications under review will ultimately receive either a sale permit or a sale rejection order. Additional steps may be taken temporarily during any application review, as stated on the FDA website.

 

The FDA's ongoing review does not change the fact that, according to the law, all e-cigarette products, including those made by JUUL, must obtain FDA authorization to legally market them.

 

We welcome news tips, article submissions, interview requests, or comments on this piece.

Please contact us at info@2firsts.com, or reach out to Alan Zhao, CEO of 2Firsts, on LinkedIn


Notice

1.  This article is intended solely for professional research purposes related to industry, technology, and policy. Any references to brands or products are made purely for objective description and do not constitute any form of endorsement, recommendation, or promotion by 2Firsts.

2.  The use of nicotine-containing products — including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouchand heated tobacco products — carries significant health risks. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.

3.  This article is not intended to serve as the basis for any investment decisions or financial advice. 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any inaccuracies or errors in the content.

4.  Access to this article is strictly prohibited for individuals below the legal age in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright

 

This article is either an original work created by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with proper attribution. All copyrights and usage rights belong to 2Firsts or the original content provider. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other form of unauthorized use by any individual or organization is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally accountable.

For copyright-related inquiries, please contact: info@2firsts.com

 

AI Assistance Disclaimer

 

This article may have been enhanced using AI tools to improve translation and editorial efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, inaccuracies may occur. Readers are encouraged to refer to the cited sources for the most accurate information.

We welcome any corrections or feedback. Please contact us at: info@2firsts.com

UK HMRC Launches Vape Duty Stamps on October 1, Ushering in Supply-Chain Traceability as Chinese Exporters Face New Compliance Hurdles
UK HMRC Launches Vape Duty Stamps on October 1, Ushering in Supply-Chain Traceability as Chinese Exporters Face New Compliance Hurdles
HM Revenue & Customs put the UK's Vaping Products Duty and Vaping Duty Stamps Scheme into effect on October 1. All vaping liquids manufactured in or imported into the UK are now subject to duty at £2.20 per 10ml, regardless of nicotine content. The stamp regime will introduce digital functionality designed to provide traceability throughout the supply chain, with approved manufacturers, importers and warehousekeepers required to report product movements and retailers and consumers eventually able to scan stamps to verify authenticity. China exported $177 million of vape-related products to the UK in August, up 51.4% year over year, increasing the significance of the new compliance regime for China's Shenzhen-centered vape supply chain.
Regulations
Oct.04
Juul Sublicense Reshapes Vuse Alto Patent Bill as Court Ends R.J. Reynolds’ 5.25% Royalty Obligation to Altria
Juul Sublicense Reshapes Vuse Alto Patent Bill as Court Ends R.J. Reynolds’ 5.25% Royalty Obligation to Altria
According to Law360 on August 31, 2026, a federal judge in North Carolina ruled that a patent sublicense between R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and Juul Labs Inc. relieves Reynolds of its obligation to continue paying royalties to Altria Client Services LLC over Vuse Alto. A jury had previously found that Vuse Alto infringed three Altria patents and awarded approximately $95.2 million in past damages, after which Reynolds was ordered to pay an ongoing royalty equal to 5.25% of positive net sales. The new ruling finds that a valid sublicense can eliminate future infringement, potentially ending what Altria described as hundreds of millions of dollars in future royalties.
Sep.01
China Tobacco Zhejiang files patent for pressure-triggered, on-demand oral nicotine release
China Tobacco Zhejiang files patent for pressure-triggered, on-demand oral nicotine release
China Tobacco Zhejiang Industrial Co., Ltd. has filed a patent application for an oral nicotine delivery product designed to let users actively adjust nicotine release. The product embeds two types of nicotine reservoirs with different wall thicknesses and positions inside a deformable matrix. Pressure applied with the tongue or lips can rupture the reservoirs and accelerate nicotine release. In simulated oral tests, several patent examples showed sharply higher peak nicotine release rates as applied force increased from 0 N to 1 N and 3 N. The filing explores a shift from preset release profiles toward user-triggered nicotine delivery.
Sep.01
Virginia Tobacco Retail Permit Takes Effect October 1, Covering Vapes as More Than 3,000 Businesses Apply in September
Virginia Tobacco Retail Permit Takes Effect October 1, Covering Vapes as More Than 3,000 Businesses Apply in September
Virginia's new retail tobacco permit system took effect October 1, requiring sellers of vapes, nicotine products and related devices and accessories to obtain a Retail Tobacco Permit for each business location. Virginia ABC said more than 3,000 businesses applied in September alone, creating a processing backlog. Qualifying applicants that filed before October 1 may temporarily operate under a Letter of Authorization. The new store-level permit also sits alongside Virginia's existing vape product directory, where sales of unlisted liquid nicotine or nicotine vapor products can trigger civil penalties starting at $5,000.
Regulations
Oct.03
Special Report | How Capital Is Reassessing the Global Tobacco and Modern Nicotine Industry: Lessons from a New York Forum
Special Report | How Capital Is Reassessing the Global Tobacco and Modern Nicotine Industry: Lessons from a New York Forum
Capital is reassessing the global tobacco and modern nicotine industry as heated tobacco, vaping and nicotine pouches reshape demand, profitability and regulation. At the 2026 New Approaches Summit in New York, investors and analysts examined whether smoke-free growth can sustain earnings, how regulation shapes startup value, and whether shareholder engagement can be more effective than divestment. The debate points to a broader shift: tobacco transition is increasingly becoming a capital-allocation, governance and valuation question.
Capital Markets
Oct.05
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
According to VitalLaw on August 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated an FDA marketing denial order (MDO) against NicQuid LLC, ruling that the agency’s comparative-efficacy standard for electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) applications had become a substantive rule requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court did not reject FDA’s authority to compare the public health benefits and risks of flavored vapes, but held that the agency could not establish a broadly binding standard through informal adjudications. The case was remanded to FDA for further proceedings.
Aug.28