Key Takeaways
- Fontem US dismissed its lawsuit against the FDA and said it plans to refile in federal court in Washington, D.C.
- A Texas federal court had previously transferred the case to federal court in South Carolina.
- Fontem said it had specifically asked that any transfer be to the District of Columbia, but that request was not granted.
- The Texas judge said the main connection to Texas came from a convenience store that wanted to sell the product.
- The original suit said the FDA neither approved nor denied the PMTA for more than four years before sending a refuse-to-file letter.
2Firsts, March 25, 2026
According to Law360, Fontem US, the maker and seller of Zone nicotine pouches, on Tuesday dismissed its lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The company had accused the FDA of unfairly delaying its market application and said it plans to refile the case in federal court in Washington, D.C.
Fontem dismissed the case and said it will refile in Washington, D.C.
Fontem voluntarily ended its own lawsuit and said in a notice filed in South Carolina federal court that it was dissatisfied with U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman’s decision to transfer the case out of Texas. The company said it had specifically asked that, if the FDA’s motion to transfer were granted, the case be sent to the District of Columbia, but Judge Pittman instead transferred it to South Carolina.
In its notice, Fontem said a plaintiff’s choice of forum is ordinarily entitled to deference, and said the defendants had not objected to the request for transfer to the District of Columbia.
The Texas court said the case had limited ties to Texas and that South Carolina was more appropriate
In his Monday order, Judge Pittman said he struggled to find any real connection between the case and Texas. He said the only apparent link to Texas came from OM Investment, Fontem’s co-plaintiff, a convenience store that wanted to sell the product.
The judge also said the Northern District of Texas is more congested, with 522 pending cases per judgeship, compared with 374 per judgeship in the Middle District of North Carolina. Because Fontem is based in South Carolina, he said that venue was more appropriate.
Judge Pittman said the case does not concern a general rule affecting a broad range of companies, but rather Fontem’s own application, with any effect on retailers being “attenuated and miniscule in comparison.”
The original suit said the FDA delayed for more than four years before issuing a refuse-to-file letter
In weighing the transfer, the judge considered both private and public interest factors. He said that because the case arises under the Administrative Procedure Act, most factors relating to evidence, witnesses and compulsory process were neutral, but convenience and court administration favored transfer.
Law360 said Fontem had filed the lawsuit earlier this month, accusing the FDA of delaying action on its market application for a tobacco product. According to the suit, even though the Tobacco Control Act requires the FDA to approve or deny premarket tobacco product applications within 180 days, the agency did neither for more than four years before ultimately sending a refuse-to-file letter.
Image Source: Law360
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
