Key points:
Time and Subject: On the 3rd, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Iowa made a preliminary ruling on the PMTA registration case, with the e-cigarette industry plaintiffs winning the case, temporarily halting the enforcement of the state's PMTA registration law.
Controversy: The court ruled that the state regulations violated the federal preemption clause under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, infringing on the FDA's exclusive regulatory authority.
Recent developments: The bill will be temporarily put on hold until further ruling from the court; VTA has filed a lawsuit against the registration bill in North Carolina and plans to apply for a preliminary injunction next week.
Industry significance: North Carolina faces similar challenges, and the ruling could provide a legal precedent for other states facing similar lawsuits regarding PMTA registration laws.
According to a report by Vaping360 on May 4th, Chief Judge Stephanie Rose of the Southern District of Iowa Federal Court ruled on May 3rd to temporarily stay the implementation of the state's PMTA registration law (HF 2677) for e-cigarette products.
The plaintiffs in this case are the Iowa State E-cigarette Industry Association (IFAST) and several local businesses. The bill (HF 2677) was passed by the state legislature in April 2024 and signed by the governor in May, with an effective date set for February 2025.
After the lawsuit was filed, the Attorney General of Iowa agreed to temporarily pause enforcement, awaiting the court's decision on the preliminary injunction.
The court ruled that the law violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it attempted to regulate e-cigarette products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a power that Congress has explicitly given to the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Ross pointed out in the ruling:
"As the plaintiff alleges, Congress intended to concentrate enforcement authority on the FDA in Section 337(a) of the FDCA, aiming to prevent states from adopting inconsistent enforcement methods that would undermine the federal regulatory system. Iowa acknowledges that the legislative motive is the "absence of federal enforcement," which reflects why Congress has granted such enforcement powers to the federal government."
Currently, the bill has been put on hold, awaiting further legal proceedings.
In addition, Eric Heyer, an attorney at the law firm Thompson Hine LLP representing the plaintiffs from Iowa in the case, filed a similar lawsuit on April 30 on behalf of the Vapor Technology Association (VTA), a trade organization for the American e-cigarette industry, challenging North Carolina's newly passed PMTA registration law. They plan to apply for a preliminary injunction next week.
Notice
1. This article is provided exclusively for professional research purposes related to industry, technology and policy. Any reference to brands or products is made solely for the purpose of objective description and does not constitute an endorsement, recommendation, or promotion of any brand or product.
2. The use of nicotine products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and heated tobacco products, is associated with significant health risks. Users are required to comply with all relevant laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.
3. This article is strictly restricted from being accessed or viewed by individuals under the legal age.
Copyright
This article is either an original work by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with the original source clearly indicated. The copyright and usage rights of this article belong to 2Firsts or the original source. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other unauthorized use of this article by any entity or individual is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally responsible. For copyright-related matters, please contact: info@2firsts.com
AI Assistance Disclaimer
This article may have utilized AI to enhance translation and editing efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, errors may occur. Readers are advised to refer to the sources provided for more accurate information.
This article should not be used as a basis for any investment decisions or advice, and 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any errors in the content.
