Smoking Everywhere Inc v. Food

• Decision Date: 14 January 2010
• Docket Number: Civil Case No. 09-771 (RJL).
• Citation: 680 F.Supp.2d 62
• Parties: SMOKING EVERYWHERE, INC., Plaintiff, and Sottera, Inc., d/b/a NJOY, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

680 F.Supp.2d 62

SMOKING EVERYWHERE, INC., Plaintiff, and Sottera, Inc., d/b/a NJOY, Intervenor-Plaintiff,

v.U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants.

Civil Case No. 09-771 (RJL).

United States District Court,

District of Columbia.

Decided: Jan. 14, 2010.

Christopher Kip Schwartz, Eric N. Heyer, Thompson Hine, LLP, Washington DC, Brian J. Lamb, Matthew D. Ridings Thompson Hine, LLP, Cleveland, OH, Walt A. Linscott, Thompson Hine, LLP Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.

Drake S. Cutini, Department of Justice Office of Consumer Litigation, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Smoking Everywhere, Inc. ("Smoking Everywhere"), and intervenorplaintiff, Sottera, Inc., which does business as "NJOY" ("NJOY") (collectively, "plaintiffs"), are distributors of a product known as "electronic cigarettes" or "E-cigarettes." They claim that inbound shipments of their products from overseas manufacturers have been denied entry into the United States, or have otherwise been detained, by order of the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") on the ground that electronic cigarettes are an unapproved drug-device combination under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction against the FDA and Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, as well as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (collectively, "FDA"), ¹ enjoining FDA from regulating electronic cigarettes as a drug-device combination and from denying entry of those products into the United States. As such, this case raises for the first time the issue of whether FDA has the authority under the FDCA to regulate electronic cigarettes as a drugdevice combination. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that it does not and therefore GRANTS plaintiffs' motions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. Electronic Cigarettes

Smoking Everywhere describes "electronic cigarettes" as "an alternative to traditional smoked tobacco products" that is "designed to replicate the adult experience of smoking without combustion or the use of cancerous by-products." (Smoking Everywhere Complaint [# 1] at ¶ 8). They function by vaporizing a liquid nicotine mixture that is derived naturally from tobacco plants. (Id.).Once the nicotine mixture is vaporized, the user inhales the vapor in much the same way that a traditional smoker would inhale tobacco smoke except "without the fire, flame, tar, carbon monoxide, known cancerous substances ash, stub, or smell found in traditional cigarettes." (Id.).Electronic cigarettes have three basic components that are designed to resemble an actual cigarette: the cartridge, the heating element (also known as the atomizer), and electronics plus a battery.(Id.at ¶ 9). The cartridge, a plastic container that holds a mixture of propylene glycol and liquid nicotine, serves as the mouthpiece of the electronic cigarette. (Id.). The heating element vaporizes the liquid nicotine mixture, and the electronics power the heating element and monitor the air flow. (Id.). When a user inhales from the cartridge, the electronics detect the flow of air and then activate the heating element, which vaporizes the nicotine mixture. (Id. at ¶ 10). The vapor, which the user inhales, contains a flavor that simulates the taste and feel of tobacco. (Id.). Simply stated, the electronic cigarette is designed to look and to be used just like a traditional cigarette.

Smoking Everywhere is a distributor that imports electronic cigarettes from overseas manufacturers. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 12). It derives all of its revenue from the importation and sale of electronic cigarettes, its sole product line. (Id. at ¶ 12). Since its founding over a year ago, it has imported and sold more than 600, 000 units. (Id. at ¶ 7). Smoking Everywhere markets its electronic cigarettes as an alternative to traditional cigarettes that delivers the same sensation as smoking. Its promotional materials state, for example: "[e]ach cartridge is equivalent to 20 traditional cigarettes"; "[t]he taste of the Smoking Everywhere cartridge resembles that of tobacco"; "Smoking Everywhere E-Cigarette has been designed to look and feel like a traditional cigarette"; "[i]t looks like a real cigarette, feels like a real cigarette and tastes like a real cigarette, yet it isn't a real cigarette"; "Smoking Everywhere E-Cigarette... gives the users the feeling they get when they smok[e] real cigarette[s]"; "Smoking Everywhere ECigarette will provide smokers the same delight, physical and emotional feelings they get in smoking traditional cigarettes"; "[t]his is what the smoker gets, the nicotine hit that smokers crave"; and " '[e]lectronic cigarette' is a kind of non-flammable electronic cigarette with similar functions to those of a common cigarette which is to refresh smokers and satisfy their smoking addiction, thus making them happy and relaxed." (Administrative Record of Detention and Refusal ("AR DET") 28, 35, 39, 41, 49, 51, 56). Smoking Everywhere also markets its electronic cigarettes as a healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes. For example, customer testimonials on its website proclaim: "I thought [Ecigarette] was a great alternative to help me stop smoking real cigarettes"; "I've been smoking real cigarettes for over 20 years and really wanted to stop because it was damaging my lungs... I've been using [E-cigarettes] for 3 weeks now and feel great"; and "[t]here is less health risk, and I can smoke anywhere and everywhere." (AR DET 21). Smoking Everywhere's promotional materials also state that E-cigarettes are "cheaper and healthier than real cigarettes," that they offer "smokers a chance of smoking in a much healthier way," and that "smokers still get their nicotine, but don't get any harmful side effects of smoking traditional cigarettes." (AR DET 39, 49).

NJOY, an intervenor-plaintiff in this case, is also in the business of importing and distributing electronic cigarettes. (NJOY Complaint [# 22] at ¶ 1). Since it began selling electronic cigarettes in early 2007, NJOY has sold at least 135, 000 units in the United States. (Id. at ¶ 13). NJOY markets its electronic cigarettes only for "smoking pleasure" as an alternative to conventional cigarettes. (NJOY Complaint [# 22] at ¶ 1). It claims not to make therapeutic representations. (Id.). Indeed, NJOY labels its products with a disclaimer that states, for instance: "NJOY products are not a smoking cessation product and have not been tested as such." (Declaration of John Leadbeater ("Leadbeater Decl.") [# 24-1] at ¶ 9 (internal quotation marks omitted)).

II. The Refused Shipments

This action arises from FDA's decision to detain multiple inbound shipments of electronic cigarettes belonging to Smoking Everywhere and NJOY. In the case of Smoking Everywhere, FDA issued a "hold" on two shipments that arrived at Los Angeles International Airport in late September 2008. (AR DET 59-60). On October 29, 2008, FDA issued notices of "Detention" on the ground that the shipments "appear to be adulterated, misbranded or otherwise in violation" of the FDCA. (AR DET 78-79, 80-81). After an exchange of information about the shipments between FDA and Smoking Everywhere, FDA issued a "Correspondence" on December 23, 2008, stating its conclusion that " 'Smoking Everywhere E-Cigarette' and its component parts appear to be intended to affect the structure or function of the body, and to prevent, mitigate, or treat the withdrawal symptoms of nicotine addiction." (AR DET 97-98, 100-01). Thus, according to FDA, the product appears to be an unapproved drug-device combination under the FDCA.(Id.).FDA reiterated this view in follow-up correspondence from a compliance officer to a representative of Smoking Everywhere:

We believe that when originally offered for importation, this product was explicitly labeled and promoted for "drug" use. In addition,... this product is clearly intended for "drug" use by "the circumstances surrounding the distribution of the article." These circumstances include the product's conventional cigarette appearance; its design formulation, and function to deliver to the body through inhalation of a smokelike aerosol (resembling conventional cigarette smoke) various volatile chemical substances, including nicotine, produced by the article; and how the product is intended to be manipulated and used like conventional cigarettes to affect the body's structures and functions and/or to treat/mitigate the symptoms of nicotine addiction.

(AR DET 82). Based on this conclusion, FDA issued "Refusal of Admission" notices on March 16, 2009, for both shipments and directed that the "products must be exported or destroyed under Customs supervision within 90 days." (AR 102-04, 105-06).²

A short time later, FDA added electronic cigarettes manufactured by three Chinese companies to Import Alert 66-41, a directive that authorizes FDA district offices to "detain without physical examination any [unapproved and/or misbranded drug listed in the attachment." (Administrative Record of Import Alert 66-41 ("AR IA") 3, 85-86). Between March 30 and April 7, 2009, FDA listed electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette components manufactured by Shenzhen Kanger Technology Co. Ltd., Desonic Industrial, and Loong Totem Science & Technology as unapproved or misbranded drugs. (AR IA 85-86). NJOY claims, however, that even though the import alert only applies to the three named manufacturers, FDA's publicly available Import Refusal Reports show that, from June 2008 to May 2009, FDA district offices have denied entry to more than thirty-five shipments of electronic cigarettes and their components from twenty other manufacturers. (NJOY Supp. Reply [# 44] at 6; Declaration of David A. Becker in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction [# 44-1,-2] at ¶113-4).

In NJOY's case, an inbound shipment of its electronic cigarettes arrived in Phoenix Arizona on April...