Tag: FDA

Agriculture Groups Sue FDA on Chlorpyrifos Ban

  • As previously reported, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on August 30, 2021 that revoked all tolerances for the pesticide chemical chlorpyrifos on raw agricultural commodities; the rulemaking was driven by toxicity concerns, primarily concerning exposure in children. The tolerances are set to expire on February 28, 2022, effectively banning the use of chlorpyrifos on food crops. In light of the expiration, FDA published a guidance document to assist food producers and processors that handle foods which may contain chlorpyrifos restudies.
  • In October of 2021, agriculture stakeholders submitted formal written objections and a request to stay the tolerance revocations to EPA. More than 80 stakeholders signed the document, arguing that significant harms would result from banning chlorpyrifos and urging the agency to stay implementation of the rule until objections were formally addressed by EPA.
  • Agriculture stakeholder groups are now seeking a court injunction against EPA’s ban on chlorpyrifos. On February 10, 2022, agricultural trade groups representing thousands of members filed a lawsuit against EPA before the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that the agency ignored its own scientific findings regarding 11 high-benefit and low-risk crop uses for chlorpyrifos and that the revocation will cause irreparable damage. It remains to be seen how EPA will respond to the lawsuit.

Article By Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more food and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

New Tools in the Fight Against Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals

The explosive growth of internet pharmacies and direct-to-consumer shipment of pharmaceuticals has provided increased access to, and reduced the cost of, important medications. Unfortunately, these same forces have increased the risks that counterfeit medicines will make their way to consumers, endangering patient safety and affecting manufacturers’ reputation in the public eye.

While the Food and Drug Administration attempts to police such misconduct through enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), the resources devoted to enforcement are simply no match for the size and scope of the counterfeiting threat. Fortunately, pharmaceutical manufacturers are not without recourse, as several well-established tools may be used in the right circumstances to stop counterfeiters from profiting from the sale of knock-offs.

Experienced litigators can use the Lanham Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to stop unscrupulous individuals and organizations from deceiving customers with counterfeit versions of trademarked drugs. Until recently, these legal weapons – including search warrants, seizures, forfeitures, and significant penalties – were typically wielded only by the government and only in criminal prosecutions.

As one recent case demonstrates, however, many of the tools that law enforcement has used for years to combat counterfeiters are also available to pharmaceutical manufacturers. In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Safe Chain Solutions, LLC, et al., the manufacturer of several trademarked HIV medications filed a civil complaint, under seal, alleging violations of the Lanham Act and RICO against scores of individuals and companies that were allegedly selling counterfeit versions of these drugs to patients across the country.

By deploying private investigators and techniques typically used by law enforcement, Gilead was able to gather a substantial amount of evidence before even filing the case. The company then used this evidence to secure ex parte seizure warrants and asset freezes, allowing it to locate and seize thousands of counterfeit pills and packaging before they could be shipped to unsuspecting consumers. Through the seizure of the financial proceeds of the alleged counterfeiting, Gilead prevented the dissipation of assets. If the company can successfully prove its RICO case, it stands to recover treble damages and attorneys’ fees as well.

Manufacturers of trademarked pharmaceuticals may consider using these and other tools to tackle the threat posed by counterfeiters. By drawing upon the experience and skills of trained litigators – particularly counsel who previously deployed these tools on behalf of the government while serving as federal prosecutors – companies can proactively protect their intellectual property and the consumers who depend on their products.

Article By Eric J. Beste, Anthony J. Burba and Heather F. Delgado of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Phantom Participants with Real-World Ramifications: Clinical Drug Trial Data Falsification

As if medical-related disinformation was not pernicious enough, unscrupulous actors seek to enrich themselves from falsifying clinical drug trial data. A Florida-based clinical research firm project manager was sentenced to 30 months in prison because of his involvement in a conspiracy to falsify clinical drug trial data. Previously, the primary investigator, clinic owner, and another senior employee at Miami-based Tellus Clinical Research were charged with various counts of mail and wire fraud, money laundering, as well as making false statements to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspectors. A researcher or other employee of the medical clinic could have reported this conspiracy to the government and shared in 15-25% of the government’s recovery.

Pharmaceutical companies sponsor clinical research trials to gather data on the safety and efficacy of the drugs they manufacture. Prior to commencing research trials, pharmaceutical companies or “sponsors” must submit to the FDA their “study protocol,” which identifies who can participate, drug dosages and timing, and how the study’s performance will be measured. Sponsors engage contract research organizations (CROs) to perform the clinical trials, and the CRO must ensure compliance with the study protocol and FDA regulations. In this case, a clinical research firm contracted with pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct trials related to an opioid dependency treatment, an irritable bowel syndrome drug, and diabetic nephropathy or kidney disease medication. The sponsors would reimburse the CRO a set amount per study participant and for some fees and Tellus would pay participants in accordance with the study protocol.

How the research firm gamed the system involved the eligibility requirements for the studies: each of these clinical trials required patients to meet certain requirements for participation. Instead of honestly recruiting patients with the diagnoses needed to participate in the program, the defendants enrolled people without applicable diagnoses and falsely claimed that study participants completed all the requirements in the study protocol, to garner more payments from the clinical trial sponsors. Several of the defendants enrolled friends and family members to bump up the research firm’s participation numbers, and other research firm employees went so far as to misappropriate personal information from third parties without their knowledge or consent. The co-conspirators also falsified clinical notes and medical records of these unwitting participants, claiming to have performed medical exams, drawn blood for testing, and made payments to participants. This elaborate conspiracy served to wrongfully enrich the research firm owner and senior management at the expense of pharmaceutical companies and ultimately patients.

Clinical research fraud is harmful to consumers. As the Assistant Commissioner for the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) stated, “Compromised clinical trial data could impact the agency’s decisions about the safety and effectiveness of the drug under review.” Consumers could end up with unsafe medications due to fraudsters’ schemes.

A whistleblower could have reported this fraud to the FDA and ensured only drugs which perform well in clinical trials on real human beings make it to market. The Department of Justice needs whistleblowers to report fraud involving clinical drug trials.

© 2022 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP
For more content about the FDA and drug trials, visit the NLR Biotech, Food & Drug section.

FDA Completes Peanut Allergy Health Claim Review

  • On August 10, 2021, Prollergy Corporation (Prollergy) submitted a notification to FDA regarding health claims related to the introduction of allergenic foods to infants and the reduction in the risk of developing food allergies. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA), a manufacturer may submit to FDA a notification for a health claim based on an authoritative statement from a scientific body of the US Government or the National Academy of Sciences; in this case, the authoritative statement Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020-2025 and 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
  • On December 8, 2021, FDA announced that it had completed reviewing Prollergy’s notification, concluding that manufacturers may use the following claims on the label of any food product that qualifies for the claims:
    • “If a baby has severe eczema, egg allergy or both, introducing age-appropriate, peanut-containing foods as early as 4 months may reduce the risk of developing a peanut allergy. Caregivers should check with the baby’s healthcare provider before feeding the baby peanut-containing foods.”
    • “For babies with an increased risk of peanut allergy (babies with severe eczema, egg allergy or both), introducing age-appropriate, peanut-containing foods as early as 4 months may reduce the risk of developing a peanut allergy. Caregivers should check with the baby’s healthcare provider before feeding the baby peanut-containing foods.”
  • Companies are permitted to start using the approved claims as of December 8, 2021.  These claims are in addition to a qualified health claim that FDA acknowledged in 2017, which was also related to the link between early peanut introduction and the reduced risk of developing peanut allergies.
© 2021 Keller and Heckman LLP

Article By Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman

For more articles on food regulation, visit the NLR Biotech, Food, Drug section.

Same As It Ever Was: FDA Reiterates That CBD Cannot Be Included in Food or Dietary Supplements

While we enter a new season this week, the same cannot be said for the FDA which, on November 16, reiterated that its approach to regulating the cannabidiol (CBD) industry will be “the same as it ever was”—a regulatory minefield. Grail Sipes, acting Deputy Center Director for Regulatory Policy at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, emphasized the agency’s position that it needs additional CBD research and safety data before the agency will consider CBD for uses beyond prescription drugs, including usage as a food additive or dietary supplement. This, she said, is because “clear answers to many important questions are still lacking, such as what adverse reactions may be associated with CBD from hemp-derived products and what risks are associated with the long term use of these products.”

So why should industry stakeholders care about the FDA’s opinion anyway? Wasn’t hemp-derived CBD legalized at the federal level by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, also known as the Farm Bill?

Yes, but as we discussed in a previous blog post, the FDA and FTC have overlapping enforcement authority over CBD marketing, with the FDA having primary authority over labeling. The FDA has previously issued guidance stating that CBD can be used as an ingredient in cosmetics so long as it does not cause the product to be “adulterated or misbranded.” However, a product containing CBD cannot be marketed as a drug absent FDA approval—a lengthy and costly process. Companies marketing CBD products must therefore ensure compliance with the FDA’s labeling requirements and guidance regarding CBD products.

The FDA has not been shy to issue warning letters to CBD companies that fail to heed the agency’s labeling requirements and guidance. Starting in April 2019, the FDA (together with the FTC) began issuing warning letters to companies marketing CBD products as treatments and cures for a variety of diseases and illnesses. Those agencies continued to issue warning letters for marketing and labeling violations throughout 2019, largely for improper health-based claims about CBD products (those letters are described in more detail here and here). The most recent iteration came in 2021 when the agencies issued two warning letters to companies selling over-the-counter (OTC) drugs for pain relief that contained CBD. Sipes made clear the FDA will continue to monitor the CBD marketplace and issue warning letters to companies making improper health claims in her November 16 comments.

Given these comments, we can expect the cat-and-mouse game between federal regulators and CBD companies that push the marketing envelope to continue. To mitigate the risk of falling within the FDA’s crosshairs, CBD companies must ensure compliance with the various state and federal regulations governing the labeling and advertising of their products. We provided several marketing dos and don’ts in a previous blog post. But given the FDA’s unchanging position, the biggest takeaway remains the same: don’t make claims that a CBD product “can prevent, treat, or cure” or a disease.

Article By Rachel L. Sodée and J. Hunter Robinson of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

For more news on biotech, food, and drug law, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2021 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

FDA in 2020: What a Year!

What a year for the Food and Drug Administration! FDA, an agency with regulatory oversight of 20-25% of products on which consumers spend, including food and medicines, but which typically stays out of the limelight, was thrust into the public eye amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. This was the year many Americans became familiar with lesser-known and niche policies like those governing emergency use authorizations (EUAs) and with the role of FDA in regulating laboratory developed tests (LDTs). The agency also took some flak for seeming to bow to political pressure in authorizing hydroxychloroquine for emergency use as a potential COVID-19 treatment, then rescinding the authorization, as well as for its less-than-accurate pronouncements of positive data concerning convalescent plasma treatment. These were reminders that the agency Americans trust to protect the public does get things wrong sometimes and is susceptible in some ways to political pressure, and that effectively ensuring the public health requires a balance between safety and effectiveness and patient access to medical products. As we look ahead, we eagerly anticipate how FDA will protect and promote public health in a Biden administration.

In this post we’ll explore the FDA’s device law and policy activities from 2020. A future post will cover drug and biologics law and policy.

COVID-19 Diagnostics

FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received a lot of mostly negative attention early in the COVID-19 pandemic for well-documented (including by us) missteps related to testing. Since then, there has been a significant increase in the number of tests authorized by FDA for point-of-care (POC) uses in various patient-care settings such as clinics, emergency departments, physicians’ offices, and outdoor or mobile COVID-19 testing sites. Additionally, some tests allow patients to collect samples at home, but those samples need to be sent to a lab for processing because there are no widely available FDA-authorized test kits to diagnose COVID-19 that can be used fully at home (i.e., for collection and processing). FDA did authorize a prescription test kit that allows for at-home collection and processing of samples to detect SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) in November 2020, but expectations are that it will not be available to the public until early 2021. And on December 9, the agency authorized the first non-prescription specimen collection kit, which the consumer then sends to a clinical lab for processing; should the lab’s testing results be positive or indeterminate, a physician contacts that consumer to advise him or her regarding next steps. Our prior posts go into great detail about the state of affairs of COVID-19 diagnostic testing; see here and here.

In addition to handling hundreds of EUAs relating to COVID-19 tests, FDA also developed a SARS-CoV-2 reference panel providing a standard baseline for test kit validation testing and began releasing performance testing results from manufacturers and clinical laboratories using the reference panel.

A key question remains: have COVID-19 testing capacity and capabilities advanced to the point of allowing the type of reopening of the country that many of us have desired since March? Sadly, our assessment is that while there have been impressive advances in COVID-19 diagnostic testing, we are still not seeing deployment of rapid, point-of-need tests that could be used at airports, stadia, or other public venues including many workplaces. Rather than testing, the Trump Administration’s focus has been on vaccines and other therapeutics.

Laboratory Developed Tests

In August 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in an unsigned statement posted on its website and not published in the Federal Register, barred FDA from requiring premarket review for any LDT, including those for COVID-19, unless FDA goes through formal rulemaking procedures. This was not terribly surprising because the Trump Administration’s posture toward regulating without clear authority (and sometimes even with it) had been well-understood as unwelcome. But the August action was simultaneously unsurprising and fairly insignificant because FDA had not been requiring LDT developers to submit their tests for premarket review and was deprioritizing review of EUA requests for COVID-19 LDTs in favor of traditional, kit-based in vitro diagnostics (IVDs) from commercial manufacturers.

Further, FDA has been a key partner to Congress and the laboratory community in designing a legislative framework for LDT oversight in recent years. That effort resulted in the introduction earlier this year of the Verifying Accurate and Leading-edge IVCT Development (VALID) Act, which we covered in prior posts, and which aims to reform the federal oversight regimes for both LDTs and IVDs. In November, the issue of FDA review of COVID-19 LDTs resurfaced again when HHS appeared to reverse itself by ordering FDA to review COVID-19 LDTs to assure that those tests could enjoy PREP Act protection.

From the events of this past year, it is clear that the regulatory framework and policies surrounding LDTs will be a prominent topic of debate in 2021. However, we expect there will be no quick resolution of these issues, either at a legislative or agency policy level, in the short term and that LDTs will likely remain in a gray area of FDA regulation and policy for the foreseeable future.

Digital Health

While COVID-19 is undoubtedly FDA’s top priority, the agency has taken actions to advance other policy and programmatic goals this year. In September, FDA announced the establishment of the Digital Health Center of Excellence, which is envisioned to be a multi-center effort for developing, coordinating, and implementing comprehensive, agency-wide digital health policies and programs. We explored this idea and noted some concerns in our previous post here. What’s important about this 2020 development is that, despite the current once-in-a-century public health emergency, FDA devoted what must be limited resources to laying the groundwork for the Digital Health Center of Excellence, suggesting that as we move into appropriations season and, perhaps more consequentially, the user fee negotiations, FDA will be prioritizing and seeking additional support for digital health.

510(k) & PMA Reform

In our 2019 year in review post for devices, we detailed significant proposed changes to the premarket notification (commonly known as “510(k)”) and premarket approval (PMA) pathways. With respect to 510(k)s, the optional Safety and Performance Based Pathway relies on comparisons of devices to criteria (like consensus standards) rather than the technological characteristics of a predicate device that is already on the market. The Safer Technologies Program builds on the Breakthrough Devices Program by enabling earlier and more frequent interactions with FDA for devices that may not meet the stringent breakthrough criteria, but which could still be beneficial for patients. FDA’s PMA proposal would allow a device to be marketed based on a demonstration of a reasonable assurance of safety only, with reasonable assurance of effectiveness needing to be demonstrated soon after marketing authorization (often referred to as “progressive” or “conditional” approval). This fairly substantial change to the PMA process would require Congress to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Progress on implementing these proposals stalled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and two clouds now loom over them: the new administration and the question of which party will control the Senate. Senate Democrats have long been skeptical of FDA’s attempts to change the device regulatory model, fearing it is too industry-forward and lacks much-needed safety oversight. A new Biden-appointed FDA Commissioner may similarly be unenthusiastic about proposals that appear to make it easier to get products to market without thorough vetting. Pressure from a Democrat-controlled Congress on a Democratic administration would do little to help advance these proposals. FDA’s device program may, however, still benefit from a Democrat-controlled Senate in that Democrats may be more willing to fund the nascent National Evaluation System for health Technology (NEST), on which many of FDA’s plans for improved safety surveillance and premarket review rest. And we have yet to see the types of investments both Congress and industry will be making in the upcoming user fee reauthorization process.

Missed Deadlines

FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), like other FDA organizational units, has statutory mandates, user fee commitments, and other self-imposed goals to meet, which include commitments to publish new regulations, make reports to Congress, draft or finalize guidance documents, and goals for completing premarket reviews for new medical devices. We have unfortunately seen CDRH miss some deadlines this year, which we hope is not a pattern of the center setting goals so lofty it cannot reasonably meet them, or of the center choosing to prioritize its own goals over those set by Congress.

For example, CDRH missed a statutory requirement in the 2017 Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act (FDARA) to issue a proposed regulation by August 2020 for over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids. It has also repeatedly delayed publication of a draft guidance on the topic of medical device servicing and remanufacturing that has been on the priority guidance list since October 2018. The document appears on the FY 2021 priority guidance list as it did on the FY 2020 and FY 2019 lists, raising questions about whether it will actually be published this fiscal year. In addition, the center postponed a major guidance on clinical decision support software, which is also on the FY 2021 guidance priority list. CDRH also missed multiple deadlines over the past couple of years to issue a revised quality system regulation (QSR) that aligns with ISO 13485. While setting goals is, of course, the first step to achieving them, we wonder if FDA should take a (well-deserved, particularly in light of the extraordinary COVID-19 response effort) beat to catch up on some of these and other items before committing to more.

CDRH Director Jeff Shuren recently admitted that the diversion of FDA resources to processing EUA requests and creating policies and processes necessary to address the COVID-19 emergency did cause delays for many of the center’s other initiatives. Dr. Shuren has recently called for a reset in 2021 to refocus on CDRH’s priority projects, especially in the areas of digital health and 510(k) reform.

Stay tuned for our next post on FDA drug and biologics law and policy activities in 2020 and for more in 2021 on FDA activities related to COVID-19, user fees, and more.

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles on the FDA, visit the National Law Review Administrative & Regulatory section.

PFAS Water Cleanup…Have You Bought Yourself a Multi-Million Dollar Superfund Issue?

The last two years have seen an incredible uptick in activity with respect to PFAS regulations, and media coverage of PFAS continues to fuel the fires from the public, non-government organizations and environmental groups for additional action to be taken. The EPA continues its process of determining Maximum Contaminant Levels for PFAS. The FDA is examining the ways that it might regulate PFAS levels in both food and food packaging. Meanwhile, states, bombarded with constituent outcries and under pressure to take action to fill the gap until the EPA and FDA finish their regulatory review processes, quickly enact drinking water limits for PFAS and ban PFAS-containing products, such as children’s toys and food packaging.

As states continue setting drinking water limits for PFAS and in preparation for the EPA’s final determination of a Maximum Contaminant Level for PFAS in drinking water, many water utilities are beginning to evaluate the steps needed to come into compliance with existing or anticipated water regulations. Comprehensive compliance programs are being created and costly well testing sites are being built to determine PFAS content at various points along the waterways for drinking water sources. At water treatment facilities, expensive water filtration systems are being installed to remove as many PFAS as possible from drinking water sources. With water utilities coming under fire in the litigation world for PFAS issues, these steps may curtail the short-term issues and costs associated with PFAS litigation.

However, the long-term impact of the remediation steps that water treatment facilities ae taking may only be pushing litigation costs further down the road, not eliminating them. In addition, little considered Superfund laws may be triggered through PFAS water filtration that could end up costing water treatment facilities tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs.

CERCLA and PFAS

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), once a substance is designated as “hazardous” by the EPA, the Act gives the EPA considerable power to designate sites containing such substances as Superfund sites and force parties responsible for the pollution to pay for the cleanup of the site. Without a designation of a substance as “hazardous” (and therefore a site as a Superfund site), the EPA may either pay for the cleanup of the site itself or attempt to pursue, through time-consuming and costly litigation, the property owner for the costs of cleanup.

One of the most closely watched developments in the PFAS world is whether the EPA will make the determination that PFAS are “hazardous” under CERCLA. Although the EPA has promised its determination soon and various lawmakers are pressuring the EPA to make a determination in the near future, it is still uncertain as to when the EPA will issue its final regulations.

In the meantime, however, water utilities are under increasing pressure to filter out PFAS from drinking water. These PFAS are typically deposited in landfills. Out of sight, out of mind? Not exactly, when it comes to PFAS. As the quantity of PFAS accumulate in landfills, if the EPA makes a determination that PFAS are “hazardous” substances under CERCLA, the EPA could immediately designate landfills full of PFAS as Superfund sites and take action to pursue parties to pay for the cleanup. Water utilities could therefore be at significant risk of having to pay for Superfund site cleanup.

Further, in some instances, water utilities may have previously been involved with Superfund site cleanup for other reasons and believed the site issues to be fully remediated.  However, since PFAS have not yet been classified as “hazardous”, Superfund sites were never tested for PFAS. Should the EPA determined that PFAS are “hazardous” under CERCLA, the EPA will have the right to reopen previously closed Superfund sites for further testing and remediation specific to PFAS, even if parties deemed responsible for the pollution already paid millions of dollars to clean up the site for other contaminants.

Water utilities in particular must pay special attention to PFAS developments under CERCLA. Proactive planning is needed to determine alternate means of disposing of or eliminating PFAS from water sources. Failure to enact forward-thinking strategies may very well end up costing water utility companies tens of millions in unexpected and unwanted costs if they fail to do so.

©2020 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE BY John Gardella at CMBG3 Law.

U.S. District Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order for Silver Products Fraudulently Promoted as a Treatment for COVID-19

On April 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the sale of a fraudulent coronavirus (COVID-19) treatment.  The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the court’s decision in an effort to halt the sale of silver products fraudulently claimed to prevent and cure COVID-19.

DOJ filed a civil complaint on April 27, 2020, against defendants Gordon Pedersen of Cedar Hills, Utah and his companies, My Doctor Suggests LLC and GP Silver LLC.  The complaint alleges that defendants began fraudulently promoting and selling various silver products in early 2020 with claims that the silver products would treat and prevent COVID-19.  Some of the alleged false and misleading claims made by defendants include that having silver particles in the bloodstream would block the virus from attaching to cells, that silver would “usher” the virus out of the body, and that silver would destroy all forms of viruses and protect against COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a statement on the Utah case that “FDA will continue to help ensure those who place profits above the public health during the COVID-19 pandemic are stopped” and that FDA is “fully committed to working with the Department of Justice to take appropriate action against those jeopardizing the health of Americans by offering and distributing products with unproven claims to prevent or treat COVID-19.”

The enforcement action will be prosecuted in a coordinated action by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah and the DOJ Civil Division Consumer Protection Branch, with the assistance of the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations and Office of the Chief Counsel.  In addition to the TRO, prosecutors obtained a separate court order temporarily freezing the defendants’ assets in order to preserve the court’s ability to grant effective final relief and to maintain the status quo.  A hearing on the DOJ’s request for a preliminary injunction is set for May 12, 2020.  If the case proceeds to trial, the government will need to prove its allegations to obtain a permanent injunction against the defendants.

In another case, DOJ announced on April 17, 2020, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a TRO to halt the sale of an unapproved and potentially dangerous industrial bleach product being marketed as a “miracle” treatment for COVID-19.  The FDA and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had issued a warning letter to the defendant, Genesis II Church of Health and Healing, on April 8, 2020.  According to the FDA, oral ingestion of the defendant’s product called the Miracle Mineral Solution can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and severe dehydration.  The FDA and the FTC have issued nearly 40 separate warning letters in 2020 to companies selling unapproved or misbranded products with claims to prevent or to treat COVID-19.

Commentary

Particulate elemental silver and silver salts can be effective antimicrobial agents, and numerous products containing these active ingredients are currently registered for various antimicrobial uses.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, along with other federal agencies, are working to ensure that necessary reviews and approvals of legitimate products intended to address COVID 19 are as expeditious as possible.  Products that need these regulatory reviews and approval, but that are marketed without them, are and will likely continue to be a current enforcement focus.

©2020 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more in COVID-19 fraud prevention, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Price Gouging and Deceptive Advertising Practices Amidst COVID-19 Pandemic

The Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration and state Attorneys General have bumped the protection of consumers in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis to the top of their respective lists, including, but not limited to, price gouging and unsubstantiated product efficacy claims.  The U.S. Department of Justice has also issued a broad mandate regarding criminal enforcement of deceptive, fraudulent and predatory practices.

 State Attorneys General

State Attorney General have actively been policing the advertising of claims related to products that purport to cure, treat or prevent COVID-19.  This includes both express and implied claims (e.g., immunity-based claims).

Currently are no vaccines, pills, potions, lotions, lozenges or other prescription or over-the-counter products to treat or cure.

By way of example, a group of thirty-two state attorneys general recently sent letters to executives at prominent online retailers, urging them to help police price gouging.  Additionally, the New York Attorney General has asked GoDaddy and other online registrars to halt and de-list domain names used for Coronavirus-related scams and fake remedies designed to unlawfully and fraudulently profit off consumers’ fears around the coronavirus disease.

The NY AG has also recently contacted Craigslist.com, calling on the company to immediately remove posts that attempt to price gouge users, or otherwise purport to sell items that provide “immunity” to the coronavirus or allow individuals to test for the disease.  For example, the AG’s letter referred to posts that promoted an “immunity pack,” a fake coronavirus testing kit, and face masks that are not even proven to provide coronavirus-related protection.  The AG also asked Craigslist to remove an advertisement for a bottle of Purell that was priced at over $200.

Price gouging on disinfectant products is also a priority.

State AGs and other federal agencies are actively investigating potential price gouging violations, filing enforcement lawsuits, issuing civil investigative demands (CIDs), and serving cease-and-desist warnings.  The NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) – formerly the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) – has also been policing local business that it believes are selling necessary products (e.g., cleaning products, diagnostic products and services, disinfectants [wipes, liquids, sprays], face masks, gloves, hand sanitizers, medicines, paper towels, rubbing alcohol, soap, tissues and basic food supplies).

The State of New York’s price gouging statute prohibits the sale of goods and services necessary for the health, safety and welfare of consumers at unconscionably excessive prices during any abnormal disruption of the market.  During any abnormal disruption of the market for consumer goods and services vital and necessary for the health, safety and welfare of consumers, no party within the chain of distribution of such consumer goods or services or both shall sell or offer to sell any such goods or services or both for an amount which represents an unconscionably excessive price.

In the State of New York, whether a price is unconscionably excessive is a question of law for the court.  The court’s determination that a violation has occurred shall be based on any of the following factors:  (i) that the amount of the excess in price is unconscionably extreme;  or (ii) that there was an exercise of unfair leverage or unconscionable means;  or (iii) a combination of both factors in subparagraphs (i) and (ii).

Proof that a violation of has occurred can include, for example, evidence that:  (i) the amount charged represents a gross disparity between the price of the goods or services which were the subject of the transaction and their value measured by the price at which such consumer goods or services were sold or offered for sale by the defendant in the usual course of business immediately prior to the onset of the abnormal disruption of the market; or (ii) the amount charged grossly exceeded the price at which the same or similar goods or services were readily obtainable by other consumers in the trade area.  A defendant may be able to rebut such evidence by establishing that additional costs not within its control were imposed on the defendant for the goods or services.

Where a violation is alleged to have occurred, the AG may seek an injunctions, civil penalties and restitution.

Under the Rules of the City of New York, stores are prohibited from selling items that have been declared in short supply at excessively increased prices.  NYC has recently issued an emergency rule prohibiting price increases above 10% on various products necessary to combat the coronavirus.  New York State has now proposed legislation concerning medical supplies that includes a presumption that a price exceeding 10% of its price immediately prior to a public health emergency is to be considered unconscionably excessive.

Other states also utilize percentage-drive formulas when assessing excessive or unconscionable price increases, such as, without limitation, Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.  Some states impose liability upon manufacturers and distributors.  Some states also impose civil fines and penalties for violations, in addition to potential criminal liability.

Any entity charged with price gouging during a public health emergency would be entitled to rebut an alleged violation of this new law with evidence that the additional costs not within the control of the defendant were imposed on the defendant for the consumer medical supplies.

FTC and FDA

The Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration recently announced that it has issued joint warning letters to companies that allegedly had been disseminating unsubstantiated product advertising claims related to the coronavirus.  The letters cite efficacy claims that are not supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence, as well as issues relating to unapproved and misbranded drugs.

On March 26, 2020, FTC lawyer and Chairman Joe Simons issued a statement setting forth the agency’s enforcement efforts to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive commercial practices and to educate the public.  The FTC “will not tolerate businesses seeking to take advantage of consumers’ concerns and fears regarding coronavirus disease, exigent circumstances, or financial distress,” FTC lawyer Simons stated.

The FTC has also issued a press release calling attention to business-to-business scams that seek to exploit companies’ concerns about COVID-19, and sent letters to VoIP service providers and other companies warning them that “assisting and facilitating” illegal telemarketing or robocalls related to the coronavirus or COVID-19 pandemic is against the law.

“It’s never good business for VoIP providers and others to help telemarketers make illegal robocalls that scam people,” said FTC attorney Andrew Smith, Bureau of Consumer Protection Director.  “But it’s especially bad when your company is helping telemarketers exploiting fears about the coronavirus to spread disinformation and perpetrate scams,” Smith stated.

Department of Justice

The U.S. DoJ has issued a broad mandate with respect coronavirus-related fraud, price gouging and product hoarding.  In fact, it recently filed a number of federal criminal actions to combat fraud and other offenses related to the coronavirus pandemic.

Two of the actions were filed in California.  One involving allegations that an individual solicited investments in a company he claimed would be used to market pills that would prevent coronavirus infections, as well as market an injectable cure for those who had already contracted the virus.  The other, involving allegations that an individual mislabeled drugs that were purported to be a miracle cure for COVID-19.

Another two actions were filed in New Jersey.  One involving charges of violating the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and conspiracy to commit health care fraud.  The other, involving allegations of assault resulting from an individual who represented to have tested positive for COVID-19 that coughed on FBI agents, lied to them about his accumulation and sale of surgical masks, medical gowns and other medical supplies, and selling supplies to doctors and nurses at inflated prices.           .

The DoJ also recently filed a civil wire fraud lawsuit in a Texas federal district court against a website (coronavirusmedicalkit.com) that was purportedly offering access to bogus World Health Organization vaccines.

Digital marketers, consumer-facing businesses and others in the supply chain should consider consulting with experienced FTC defense counsel to avoid unsupported efficacy claims and inadvertently charging unlawful prices for goods and services necessary for the health, safety and welfare of consumers.

© 2020 Hinch Newman LLP

For more on FTC COVID-Actions, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Gin Manufacturer Bacardi Avoids Lawsuit for Its Use of “Grains of Paradise”

A federal judge in the Southern District of Florida recently dismissed an action alleging that Bacardi’s use of a botanical called “grains of paradise” in its gin was “harmful and illegal,” holding that the statute on which the lawsuit was based was preempted by federal law. Marrach v. Bacardi U.S.A, 19-cv-23856 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2020).

The complaint alleged a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. While Plaintiff himself suffered no harm from the drink, he cited a nineteenth-century provision forbidding the adulteration of alcoholic beverages with “grains of paradise” to support his claim that Bacardi’s use of the botanical was illegal. However, Bacardi argued in its motion to dismiss that the complaint was preempted because the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) permits the use of “grains of paradise.”

In an opinion that did not mince words, Judge Robert N. Scola granted the motion to dismiss, opening with the observation: “Numerous class actions have greatly benefited society such as Brown v. Board of Education, In re Exxon Valdez, and In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation. This is not one of those class actions.” He noted that the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 granted the FDA broad authority to monitor and control the introduction of food additives, signaling Congress’s intent to prevent rules unnecessarily prohibiting access to safe food additives. Judge Scola held that the Florida statute, which criminalizes adulterating liquor with grains of paradise, frustrated this purpose and was therefore preempted because it was in conflict with federal law.

Plaintiff attempted to counter this reasoning by arguing that the 21st Amendment gave states the right to regulate liquor, thereby overriding any argument that federal law governed in this matter. Judge Scola disagreed. As an initial matter, “the 21st Amendment does not in any way diminish the reach of the Supremacy Clause,” and therefore has neither the intent nor effect of undermining federal preemption of inconsistent state law. Moreover, Judge Scola noted that other courts have found similar state law prohibitions on food additives to be preempted by the FDCA.

Like previous cases we have covered on this blog, the decision underscores the FDA’s broad regulatory authority over food and beverage products which cannot be circumvented by plaintiffs simply by bringing claims under state law. In doing so, it provides important assurance to manufacturers of such products that their reliance on federal law will not be undercut by arcane state provisions.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP.

For more on food & beverage authority, see the National Law Review Biotech Food & Drug section.