United States: Implied Preemption And Monograph Drugs

Last Updated: December 13 2016
Article by James Beck

The Reed Smith blogging team has just returned from this year's annual ACI Drug & Medical Device Litigation conference. In addition to excessive amounts of eating, drinking, and socializing (now called "networking"), we kept our eyes open for new and interesting topics to blog about. We were not disappointed. We learned a lot more regarding preemption of claims involving non-prescription, over-the-counter ("OTC") drugs, particularly those governed by parts of the FDA's monograph system that we haven't considered much before.

We knew, of course, that OTC drug preemption is governed by 21 U.S.C. §379r, which contains not only an express preemption clause, but also a savings clause. Under the preemption clause, tort claims demanding warnings or other information that is "different from," "addition[al] to," or "otherwise not identical with" federal labeling requirements are preempted. However – and it's a great big however – the savings clause exempts "product liability" claims from preemption. Id. §379r(e). That doesn't mean that preemption covers nothing of interest to us. We've discussed at some length how many courts have considered non-personal injury claims to be outside the scope of the "product liability" saving language, and therefore precluded by express preemption. Most recently, we described a 2014 New Jersey case involving mouthwash that refused to apply a presumption against preemption to the express preemption clause, finding the presumption precedent "confused" and inapplicable. Bowling v. Johnson & Johnson, 65 F. Supp. 3d 371, 374 & n.17 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

But what about implied preemption by reason of conflict – specifically the impossibility preemption rationale adopted in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011), and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S.Ct. 2468, (2013)? What we heard at the ACI conference sounded good enough to us that we thought we'd investigate it pass along what we found.

First, we've already blogged about the recent demise of the presumption against preemption in express preemption cases. See Puerto Rico v. Franklin-California Tax-Free Trust, 136 S. Ct. 1938, 1946 (2016) ("because the statute contains an express pre-emption clause, we do not invoke any presumption against pre-emption") (citation and quotation marks omitted). While not a good thing for implied preemption generally, this difference between implied and express preemption is also a vivid demonstration of the principle that express and implied preemption operate independently. As the Supreme Court previously held in one of our favorite cases:

Respondent also suggests that we should be reluctant to find a pre-emptive conflict here because Congress included an express pre-emption provision. . . . To the extent respondent posits that anything other than our ordinary pre-emption principles apply under these circumstances, that contention must fail . . . .

Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341, 352 (2001). See also: Spreitsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 65, 123 S.Ct. 518, 154 L.Ed.2d 466 (2002); Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 869 (2000); Freightliner v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 288-289 (1995). The combination found in §379r of preemption and savings clauses do not "create some kind of 'special burden'" that would "specially disfavor pre-emption." Geier, 529 U.S. at 870.

Mensing/Bartlett preemption, of course, depends on what we call the "independence principle."

[W]hen a party cannot satisfy its state duties without the Federal Government's special permission and assistance, which is dependent on the exercise of judgment by a federal agency, that party cannot independently satisfy those state duties for pre-emption purposes.

Mensing, 564 U.S. at 623-24. Accord Bartlett, 133 S.Ct. at 2470 ("federal law prohibits generic drug manufacturers from independently changing their drugs' labels. Accordingly, state law imposed a duty on [defendant] not to comply with federal law"). That means in the OTC area, as elsewhere, there should be preemption if the defendants can't do what the plaintiffs are demanding without first going to the FDA.

First, let us point out that the rote response that "this product isn't a generic drug" is, to put it bluntly, garbage. Three Courts of Appeals have addressed this limitation, and all three have rejected it. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680, 703-04 (3d Cir. 2016); Yates v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 808 F.3d 281, 298 (6th Cir. 2015); In re Celexa & Lexapro Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 779 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 2015). Numerous trial courts cited in our drug preemption cheat sheet have held likewise. Thus there is no doctrinal obstacle to Mensing/Bartlett implied impossibility preemption applying to OTC drugs. Sikkelee, after all, involved the design of airplane parts.

So the question devolves to whether an FDA tentative monograph for an OTC drug is something that, like Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), can be amended at will, or is it something, like the Mensing/Bartlett line of cases, that is cannot be deviated from without prior FDA approval. The "changes being effected" regulation that the Levine court found dispositive, 21 C.F.R. §314.70, is explicitly limited to "changes to an approved NDA." Since NDAs are not required for OTC drugs subject to the monograph system, that would appear to be out.

Rather, the FDA regulations pertaining specifically to OTC products require compliance with monographs without a similar exception.

An over-the-counter (OTC) drug listed in this subchapter is generally recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded if it meets each of the conditions contained in this part and each of the conditions contained in any applicable monograph. Any product which fails to conform to each of the conditions contained in this part and in an applicable monograph is liable to regulatory action.

21 C.F.R. §330.1 (emphasis added). Labeling/warnings are, of course, part of this process. Id. at §330.10(a)(4)(v) (addressing labeling). As long as an OTC drug complies with "any" FDA monograph applicable to it, it is not subject to "regulatory action," but if it doesn't, the FDA can go after the manufacturer. This requirement to conform strictly to the monograph specifically extends to all labeling other than the "Indications" section:

The "Uses" section of the label and labeling of the product shall contain the labeling describing the "Indications" that have been established in an applicable OTC drug monograph or alternative truthful and nonmisleading statements. . . . Any other labeling under this subchapter and subchapter C et seq. of this chapter shall be stated in the exact language where exact language has been established and identified by quotation marks in an applicable OTC drug monograph or by regulation except as provided in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section.

Id. at §330.1(c)(2) (emphasis added). Does this regulatory "exact language" mandate sound like generic "sameness" to you? It sure does to us.

Like generics, and unlike medical devices and biologics, there is no equivalent to the CBE provisions of §314.70 in §330.1. We looked at the exceptions stated in the above block quote from §330.1(c)(2), but neither of those provisions had anything to do with strengthening labels (only use of a variety of specific, quoted language). Particularly, while a monograph is pending, and therefore "tentative," new scientific information does not support CBE-style unilateral changes to the warnings. Rather, as with generic drugs, "new" information explicitly goes to the FDA for consideration:

New data and information submitted . . . prior to the establishment of a final monograph will be considered as a petition to amend the monograph and will be considered by the Commissioner only after a final monograph has been published in the Federal Register unless the Commissioner finds that good cause has been shown that warrants earlier consideration.

Id. §330.10(a)(7)(i)(v) (emphasis added).

The FDA hasn't been able to finalize all of these monographs due to limited resources, thus a number of OTC drugs are authorized for sale under "tentative" monographs. The FDA has explained this in a guidance document for "marketed unapproved drugs":

The Agency also was faced with resource challenges because it was receiving many applications for different OTC drugs for the same indications. Therefore, in 1972, the Agency implemented a process of reviewing OTC drugs through rulemaking by therapeutic classes. . . . This process involves convening an advisory panel for each therapeutic class . . . . These panel reports are then published in the Federal Register, and, after FDA review, tentative final monographs for the classes of drugs are published. The final step is the publication of a final monograph. . . . Drugs marketed in accordance with a final monograph are considered to be generally recognized as safe and effective. . . . Final monographs have been published for the majority of OTC drugs. Tentative final monographs are in place for virtually all categories of OTC drugs.

Draft Guidance: Marketed Unapproved Drugs – Compliance Policy Guide, 2003 WL 24014273, at *8 (FDA Oct. 15, 2003) (emphasis added). These "tentative" monographs are are only tentative in that they are subject to additional formal comments. See 21 U.S.C. §330.10(7). Tentative monographs "establish[] conditions under which a category of OTC drugs or specific OTC drugs are generally recognized as safe and effective and not misbranded." Id. §330.10(7)(i).

Compliance with all tentative OTC monographs is mandatory. Another FDA regulation addresses this situation:

Marketing of such a product [an OTC drug "under consideration by an OTC advisory review panel" "on or after May 11, 1972"] with a formulation or labeling not in accord with a proposed monograph or tentative final monograph also may result in regulatory action against the product, the marketer, or both.

21 C.F.R. §330.13(b)(2) (emphasis added). By regulation, therefore, the FDA can come after any OTC drug manufacturer that violates a "proposed" or "tentative final" monograph in either the design or labeling of a drug. As to OTC drugs subject to a tentative monograph, only "marketing under [the] specified conditions will be permitted." 21 C.F.R. §330.13 (d)(2)(i); see also 21 C.F.R. §300.14(h) (for OTC products submitted after 12/23/2016).

Some OTC drugs – acetaminophen, skin protectants (sunscreen, bug repellants, lip balm, and some other stuff), and internal analgesics and related products (which previously included acetaminophen) − have been the subject of specific regulatory actions. There's a 2015 guidance for acetaminophen, for example, that indicates that the FDA is planning to issue an actual regulation to address "liver damage associated with the use of . . . OTC pediatric oral liquid acetaminophen." Over-The-Counter Pediatric Oral Liquid Drug Products Containing Acetaminophen Guidance For Industry, 2015 WL 4711458, at *1 (FDA Aug. 1, 2015). In the meantime, "[m]any of these products are marketed under the OTC conditions stated in FDA's Tentative Final Monograph for Internal Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products for OTC Human Use." Id. (footnote omitted). This 2015 guidance goes on to list a variety of "recommended" steps that manufacturers can take, but "do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities . . . and should be viewed only as recommendations." Id.

Thus these products remain "marketed under" the footnoted document, which is the 1988 "Internal Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use; Tentative Final Monograph," 53 Fed. Reg. 46204 (FDA Nov. 16, 1988). So what is that, and can manufacturers deviate from it without getting prior FDA approval?

The 1988 tentative monograph is clear enough as to its status. It states that "the present document is designated as a 'tentative final monograph.' Its legal status, however, is that of a proposed rule." 53 Fed. Reg. at 46204. Thus, according to the FDA, "any OTC drug product subject to this monograph that is repackaged or relabeled after the effective date of the monograph must be in compliance with the monograph." Id. at 46205 (emphasis added). The FDA rejected the "conten[tion] that there is no statutory authority for the codification of exact words." Id. at 46208. "All other OTC drug labeling required by a monograph or other regulation (e.g., statement of identity, warnings, and directions) must appear in the specific wording established under the OTC drug monograph or other regulation." Id. (emphasis added). Elsewhere, the FDA spoke in terms of "requiring warning statements." Id. at 46213. It's a rather long document, but we find nothing in this tentative final monograph, published in the Federal Register, that suggests that manufacturers of OTC products subject to it are free to ignore it unilaterally. "The contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed." 44 U.S.C.A. §1507.

As far as the other category, skin protectants the relevant guidance document does allow some unilateral changes, mostly to design:

Until we issue final rules for external analgesic and first aid antiseptic drug products, we do not intend to take enforcement action if an OTC drug product combines external analgesic or first aid antiseptic active ingredients identified in these tentative final monographs with applicable skin protectant active ingredients.

Draft Guidance For Industry Labeling OTC Skin Protectant Drug Products, 2008 WL 3549653, at *4 (FDA Aug. 1, 2008). As for warnings, this guidance states "[t]here are a few warnings that are required in the labeling of OTC skin protectant drug products." Id. at *6 (listing required warnings). One such product is sunscreen, and as to the the FDA has issued a final monograph. We discussed the preemptive effect of that monograph, here, and here, but all those cases were primarily express preemption and/or primary jurisdiction, the former because of the "product liability" issue we mentioned earlier.

Reviewing this material, it appears that Mensing/Bartlett preemption should apply to just about all warnings related to OTC products for which there is at least a tentative monograph. The same combination of a "sameness" requirement (the "exact language" mandate of §330.1(c)(2)) and absence of any CBE exception for "new" information (§330.10(a)(7)(i)(v)), exists for OTC products, as it does for generics. Even though denominated "tentative," the relevant documents are replete with threats of administrative action should they be deviated from during the (very long) interim period before they are to be finalized. They also use mandatory language – "must" and "required." There seems to be somewhat more leeway in the skin protection area, as described in the relevant guidance, but all the sunscreen cases so far have been fallen outside the "product liability" exception, and thus have turned on express preemption and §379(r).

Ever since the FDA began regulating OTC products, it has specifically allowed then to be regulated – and marketed – pursuant to this system of "tentative monographs" set out in 21 C.F.R. §330.10(a)(7). As described, while the FDA reserves the right to change the requirements of these monographs, in most instances the design and language of warnings therein specified cannot be unilaterally changed by regulated persons, and deviations from them are subject to FDA enforcement action. Plaintiffs may not like this system, but it is what it is. State law cannot ignore the basis on which these products have been sold for decades without putting manufacturers in an "impossible" position of being punished with liability for doing what the FDA requires them to do.

Nor, as a last resort, can state common-law posit that the tentative monograph system is a lousy system, doesn't result in "safe" products, and thus manufacturers cannot avoid liability, whether or not a particular requirement is mandatory. That would amount to telling FDA-regulated manufacturers that they cannot sell their products in accordance with the regulatory regime that the FDA has created. Such "stop selling" claims are themselves impliedly preempted:

We reject this "stop-selling" rationale as incompatible with our pre-emption jurisprudence. Our pre-emption cases presume that an actor seeking to satisfy both his federal- and state-law obligations is not required to cease acting altogether in order to avoid liability. Indeed, if the option of ceasing to act defeated a claim of impossibility, impossibility pre-emption would be "all but meaningless

Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. at 2477.

Finally, we would like to thank the drafters of this Drinker Biddle piece from 2012, in addition to the ACI material we saw the other day, for shaping our thinking in this post.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
James Beck
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.