US Court Rules Against Gripum's PMTA Case Against FDA

On Monday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case brought by Gripum, LLC against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The opinion, authored by Judges Wood, Hamilton, and Kirsch, ruled that the FDA did not arbitrarily reject the plaintiff's pre-market tobacco product application (PMTA).

The plaintiff "manufactured and distributed hundreds of flavors of e-cigarette liquid." In September 2021, they submitted a PMTA to the defendant in an attempt to bring their products to market. The FDA denied their application, claiming that the plaintiff Gripum did not adequately demonstrate the public health benefits of their product for it to be marketed in accordance with the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. After being denied by the defendant, the plaintiff requested a court review of the FDA's decision.

According to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, companies like the plaintiff seeking to sell new tobacco products must obtain approval before they can be marketed. If the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that the product is not appropriate for protecting public health (suitability standards), the application may be denied. The suitability standards are determined by the Secretary, taking into account "the risks and benefits to the population as a whole, including users and nonusers of tobacco products.

The FDA explained that they needed "substantial and reliable evidence...about the potential benefits to adult smokers" when rejecting the plaintiff's application. The plaintiff claimed in their appeal that the FDA's denial was arbitrary because they did not express attainable standards before rejecting the application, allegedly changed evidence standards, and did not take a personalized approach to the application, applying a universal presumption instead.

The Seventh Circuit Court ruled that the FDA acted in accordance with the principles of the law when evaluating the plaintiff's application. They determined that the standards used by the defendant were directly derived from the law, meaning further elaboration may not be necessary. Judges Wood, Hamilton, and Kirsch also affirmed that the FDA was consistent in requiring the plaintiff and other companies to provide standards and evidence types. They also rejected the FDA's broad presumption, stating that this argument was based on a "questionable interpretation of the agency's marketing refusal order and statutory burdens.

On Monday, the Seventh Circuit Court ruled that the FDA's denial of an application was not arbitrary or unreasonable and subsequently denied Gripum's request for a review. Gripum was represented in the lawsuit by the law firm Troutman.

Statement

This article's content is compiled from third-party information and is only intended for industry-related communication and learning.

This article does not reflect the views of 2FIRSTS, and 2FIRSTS cannot confirm the truthfulness or accuracy of the article's content. The translation of this article is only intended for industry exchanges and research.

Due to limitations in the compiling ability, the translated article may not fully reflect the original author's intended meaning. Therefore, please refer to the original article for accuracy.

For any domestic, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and foreign-related statements and positions, 2FIRSTS maintains complete consistency with the Chinese government.

The copyright of the compiled information belongs to the original media and author. If there is any infringement, please contact us for removal.