62 million smokers and vaping enthusiasts reached since 2015!
October 26, 2021

Judges Reject FDA's "Surprise Switcheroo," Issue Stay to Triton

Oct. 28 update
The FDA noted in its MDO list (dated 10/27 but published today) that Vapetasia also received a stay from the 5th Circuit Court on the same day.

"On October 26, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a stay of Vapetasiaメs MDO pending resolution of Vapetasiaメs petition for review," said the FDA.

Vapetasia is manufactured by Triton Distribution [NOTE: we originally reported that Vapetasia is owned by Triton; that is not correct], but submitted a separate PMTA and was not included in the MDO challenged in the Triton appeal detailed below.

We have found no details about Vapetasia's petition for review, motion for a stay, or the decision by the court. But, according to a source at Vapetasia the cases were consolidated, and the court ruling applies to both companies.

In a decision that could shake up the FDA’s premarket review process for vaping products, a federal court has granted a stay to Triton Distribution, preventing FDA enforcement of the agency’s Marketing Denial Order (MDO).

A three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Triton (also known as Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC) is likely to succeed in its MDO appeal, and that the FDA order is “likely arbitrary, capricious or otherwise unlawful.” The decision allows Triton to continue selling its products while the court reviews the FDA denial order.

This is the first stay issued by a court in a legal challenge to the agency’s MDOs, although the FDA itself has stayed enforcement for some companies pursuing internal administrative appeals, and has rescinded marketing denials issued to Turning Point Brands and Fumizer based on “overlooked” evidence, and promised to delay enforcement against them until their reviews are complete.

The court found the FDA moved the goalposts for companies submitting Premarket Tobacco Applications (PMTAs) in the years following its 2016 Deeming Rule. The agency changed the date for submission multiple times, wrote Judge Andrew S. Oldham for the panel, and after explaining that manufacturers could submit PMTAs without long-term scientific evidence, the FDA “changed its mind and required the very thing it said it would not—namely, long-term studies of e-cigarettes.”

In its reasoning for issuing MDOs to companies manufacturing non-tobacco and -menthol vaping products, the FDA cited a new standard of evidence that was not explained in advance. On Aug. 26, the agency explained that manufacturers of flavored products must show “sufficient product-specific scientific evidence to demonstrate enough of a benefit to adult smokers that would overcome the risk posed to youth,” and that the evidence would “likely be in the form of a randomized controlled trial or longitudinal cohort study.”

The court rejected the FDA’s last-minute change of evidentiary standards. “Many e-cigarette companies relied on the FDA’s repeated insistence that it did ‘not expect that applicants will have to conduct long-term studies to support an application’ and did not perform or submit such evidence,” Judge Oldham wrote.

Citing previous decisions, Judge Oldham described the FDA’s actions in rejecting Triton’s PMTA as a “surprise switcheroo.”

The panel found the FDA arguments against a stay deficient on other points too, and also rejected an amicus curiae brief filed in support of the FDA by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other anti-vaping special interest groups.

Those groups, say the court, “argue that the public interest cuts against a stay because continued sale of flavored e-cigarettes will endanger the youth much more than it might help adults. ‘But our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.’”

In its response to Triton’s motion for a stay, the FDA’s Justice Department lawyers argued that the court could not compel the FDA to allow Triton to sell products without enforcement by issuing a stay. But the court has done exactly that, noting that “we reject the FDA’s argument that we lack authority to grant a stay that provides interim relief.”

While the decision applies only to Triton—and only until completion of the company’s MDO appeal—attorneys in other appeals are free to cite the decision, and judges in other courts could adopt the 5th Circuit’s reasoning.

Texas-based Triton Distribution manufactures e-liquid under its own brand names, and under contract for other manufacturers. Among the brands included in Triton’s MDO were Suicide Bunny, Boiler Maker, Vape Hooligan, Chewy Clouds, and Teleos.

Smokers created vaping without help from the tobacco industry or anti-smoking crusaders, and I believe vapers have the right to continue innovating to help themselves. My goal is to provide clear, honest information about the challenges vaping faces from lawmakers, regulators, and brokers of disinformation. I’m a member of the CASAA board, but my opinions aren’t necessarily CASAA’s, and vice versa. You can find me on Twitter @whycherrywhy
Notify of
most voted
newest oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Wendy anderson
Wendy anderson
2 years ago

I don’t really understand the American judicial system but this reads like a win for vaper, to me. Congrats. I’m in Australia so I’m screwed.

adam sharr
adam sharr
2 years ago
Reply to  Wendy anderson

it’s a definite win for us in the states.

Craig aka 100%VG
Craig aka 100%VG
2 years ago

While this is great news for Triton, and others who took it to court, and possibly any others that filed a petition for a review with FDA within 30 days, do you think there will be any implications from a decision for Triton for the recipients of millions of MDOs that didn’t file for a review in time or take FDA to court over it? Could a final decision for Triton (and any others) against FDA result in forcing FDA to reevaluate all the millions of MDOs for PMTAs that were rejected out of hand (or actually evaluate them for… Read more »

2 years ago

I don’t think these interest groups can see beyond their own selfish desires. The laws in our country are constantly evolving with precedents set in courts. Thank goodness the court system of appeals upheld their duties – looking only at the due process and not bowing to political pressure.