The FDA Suspends Its Own Juul Marketing Denial Order

Regulations
Jul.14.2022
In what is appearing as a ridiculous series of events, the FDA is having to go back on its own decision and “temporarily suspending the marketing denial order (MDO) pending additional review,” seemingly in response to legal documents filed by Juul immediately after the MDO was issued.

"The FDA said it will conduct further reviews into the Juul applications.

The FDA Suspends Its Own Juul Marketing Denial Order

Many health and anti-vape groups had been pressuring the FDA to reject any PMTA applications by Juul for months. In fact earlier this year, several groups joined forces and sent a letter to the FDA urging it to take action on the outstanding PMTAs and deny any applications for flavoured vaping products.

 

Entities such as the American Lung Association (ALA) and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said they were “deeply disappointed” that the FDA was still studying a percentage of the applications, including Juul’s. ECigIntelligence had revealed that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids had gone as far as threatening to take the agency to court if it did not “immediately clarify” the timeline and reason for these delays.

 

Finally last month, the FDA issued Juul an MDO. The decision applied to “all of their products currently marketed in the United States,” and would have forced the manufacturer to completely exit the US market. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping,” stated FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf.

 

Juul denied claims that it had not submitted enough documentation

 

However in response to this, Juul immediately filed an emergency motion at a federal appeals court asking the court to take a stance against an “extraordinary and unlawful action” by the FDA. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favour of Juul, allowing the products to remain on the market.

 

In issuing the MDOs, the FDA accused Juul of failing to submit enough information in its applications, leaving regulators with many questions. However during the court filing, Juul revealed that it had submitted a 125,000-page application to the FDA nearly two years ago, adding that the application included several studies to evaluate the health risks among Juul users.

 

Subsequently, the FDA has just announced it is suspending its decision in order to conduct further reviews. “FDA is reviewing the marketing denial orders it issued to JUUL because in the course of reviewing litigation briefing materials the agency determined that there are scientific issues unique to this application that warrant additional review,” said an FDA spokesperson as quoted by Filter. The spokesperson added that because Juul’s “products do not have marketing authorization, [the company] cannot legally market, ship or sell their products,” and “the stay does not change this.”

 

“With this administrative stay from the FDA now in place, we continue to offer our products to adult smokers while we pursue the agency’s internal review process,” Joe Murillo, the chief regulatory officer at Juul Labs, said in a statement. “We remain confident in the quality and substance of our applications and believe that ultimately we will be able to demonstrate that our products do in fact meet the statutory standard of being appropriate for the protection of the public health. We now look forward to re-engaging with the FDA on a science- and evidence-based process to pursue a marketing authorization for JUUL products.”

 

Filter highlighted that that the FDA decision could be translated in one of two ways: “Either the FDA is looking to bolster its initial MDO; or it believes it may have erred and could release a full rescission, placing Juul once again in scientific review.”

 

The content excerpted or reproduced in this article comes from a third-party, and the copyright belongs to the original media and author. If any infringement is found, please contact us to delete it. Any entity or individual wishing to forward the information, please contact the author and refrain from forwarding directly from here.

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
Germany Seizes 56 Pallets of Illegal Vapes, Probe Estimates €1.8 Million Tax Loss
Germany Seizes 56 Pallets of Illegal Vapes, Probe Estimates €1.8 Million Tax Loss
German authorities have seized dozens of pallets of illegal disposable vapes in a criminal investigation, with the products estimated to have caused at least €1.8 million in tax losses. The case has also raised concerns over cross-border supply chains linked to unauthorized nicotine products entering the European market.
Jul.14
FTC Scrutinizes Fifty Bar’s “Made in America” Claims as Vape Marketing Faces New Compliance Risk
FTC Scrutinizes Fifty Bar’s “Made in America” Claims as Vape Marketing Faces New Compliance Risk
The Federal Trade Commission sent a warning letter to Lucky Bar Holdings LLC over “Made in the USA” claims tied to Fifty Bar vape products, saying staff had reason to believe the products may be imported in whole or in significant part despite unqualified U.S.-origin marketing claims.
Jul.20
Charlie’s Says 30 PACHA Vape SKUs Tentatively Identified for FDA’s Non-Priority Enforcement Public List
Charlie’s Says 30 PACHA Vape SKUs Tentatively Identified for FDA’s Non-Priority Enforcement Public List
Charlie’s Holdings said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration notified the company on June 23, 2026, that 30 PACHA vape SKUs with submitted PMTAs had been tentatively identified for inclusion on a planned public-facing FDA webpage. Under enforcement guidance issued by FDA in May, the webpage is intended to identify certain unauthorized products for which the agency generally does not intend to prioritize enforcement of premarket authorization requirements. Charlie’s disclosed the development alongside second-quarter revenue of $3.8 million, up 116% year over year.
Aug.25
Malaysia Withdraws Appeal Against Liquid Nicotine Ruling as Vape Regulation Framework Enters New Phase
Malaysia Withdraws Appeal Against Liquid Nicotine Ruling as Vape Regulation Framework Enters New Phase
Malaysia’s government has withdrawn its appeal against a High Court ruling concerning the regulatory status of liquid nicotine used in vape and e-cigarette products, according to reports by New Straits Times, Free Malaysia Today and CodeBlue on August 18, 2026. The Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled on May 15 that the government’s decision to remove liquid nicotine from the scheduled poisons list under the Poisons Act 1952 was irrational and made without proper consultation with the Poisons Board. The withdrawal ends the government’s appeal process, while the future regulatory framework for nicotine vape products remains under discussion.
Aug.21
Australia’s Tobacco Tax Debate Intensifies as One Nation’s Barnaby Joyce Warns of Illicit Market Growth
Australia’s Tobacco Tax Debate Intensifies as One Nation’s Barnaby Joyce Warns of Illicit Market Growth
Australian One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce has criticised continued tobacco excise increases, arguing that higher taxes are driving consumers toward illicit tobacco markets and benefiting organised crime groups.
Regulations
Jul.13 by 2Firsts Perspectives