Key Points
• Court and panel: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod, Jerry E. Smith and Cory T. Wilson
• Core issue: whether FDA’s denial pattern for flavored refillable/open-system products functions as a de facto ban
• Key remark: Judge Wilson said near-100% denials for a product class are a de facto ban
• Procedure claim: petitioner says FDA denied applications without notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Tobacco Control Act
• Case: VDX Distro et al. Petitioners v. Food & Drug Administration et al., No. 24-60537
2Firsts, January 7, 2026 – According to Law360, a Fifth Circuit panel on Tuesday questioned the FDA’s claim that it has no de facto ban on flavored refillable e-cigarette products, suggesting that denying hundreds of thousands of applications looked like a ban.
Judge Cory T. Wilson noted that only six out of hundreds of thousands of applications to market e-cigarette products had been approved. VDX Distro Inc. appealed after the FDA denied its application to market menthol flavored e-cigarette products, arguing the agency systematically denies refillable-system applications if they lack evidence the products are more effective than tobacco-flavored products at helping adults quit smoking cigarettes.
Wilson said that if denials are effectively at 100% for a certain class of products, that is a de facto ban.
Government counsel Ben Lewis of the U.S. Department of Justice argued that approvals exist and that there is therefore no de facto ban.
Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod asked whether the FDA ever approved flavored e-cigarette products that could not show efficacy greater than tobacco-flavored products. Lewis said that if an applicant pitched the product as more effective than tobacco-flavored products at helping adults quit smoking cigarettes, the application would be denied if evidence was not provided.
VDX Distro counsel Gregory Troutman argued that the FDA violated the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act by not engaging in notice-and-comment rulemaking before denying applications like VDX Distro’s. He said none of the open system bottled or tank devices have been approved and called that a de facto ban on open system products.
Christian Vergonis of Jones Day, for amicus R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., argued the FDA applied the efficacy standard to vaping products but not to other products like nicotine pouches, and said the agency would still deny applications even if menthol vaping products had equal efficacy.
The case is VDX Distro et al. Petitioners v. Food & Drug Administration et al., No. 24-60537, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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
