Court Opinion

ID: 9945368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 19:01:48.882679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:27.856516
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 21-9577    Document: 010111006058      Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 1
                                                                           FILED
                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                   PUBLISH                             Tenth Circuit

                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      February 27, 2024

                                                                  Christopher M. Wolpert
                       FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          Clerk of Court
                     _______________________________________

  ELECTRIC CLOUDS, INC. and
  CLOUD 9 VAPOR PRODUCTS,
  L.L.C.,

          Petitioners,

  v.                                                Nos. 21-9577 & 21-9578

  UNITED STATES FOOD AND
  DRUG ADMINISTRATION,

          Respondent.

  ----------------------------------------

  AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
  FAMILY PHYSICIANS;
  AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
  PEDIATRICS; AMERICAN
  CANCER SOCIETY CANCER
  ACTION NETWORK; AMERICAN
  HEART ASSOCIATION;
  AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION
  OF OKLAHOMA; AMERICAN
  MEDICAL ASSOCIATION;
  CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO-FREE
  KIDS; COLORADO MEDICAL
  SOCIETY; PARENTS AGAINST
  VAPING E-CIGARETTES; TRUTH
  INITIATIVE,

          Amici Curiae.
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058      Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 2

                  ___________________________________________

       PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM AN ORDER OF THE
           U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
               (FDA Nos. PM0002382 & PM002523)
                _________________________________________

 Jerad Wayne Najvar, Najvar Law Firm, PLLC, Houston, Texas, for
 Petitioners.

 Joshua M. Koppel, Appellate Staff Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,
 Washington D.C. (Bryan M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
 General, and Alisa B. Klein, Appellate Staff Attorney, with him on the
 briefs), for Respondent.

 William B. Schultz, Andrew N. Goldfarb, and Trillium Chang of
 Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Washington D.C., and Dennis A. Henigan and
 Connor Fuchs, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Washington, D.C., filed
 an amicus curiae brief in support of Respondent.
                 __________________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
             ___________________________________________

 BACHARACH, Circuit Judge.
           ___________________________________________

       This case arose from concern over the spread of nicotine.

 Traditionally, nicotine had come mainly from cigarettes. But nicotine now

 comes from other sources, such as e-cigarettes. With e-cigarettes, users

 inhale vaporized liquid rather than smoke; the vapor comes from heated

 liquids called e-liquids.

       E-liquids contain nicotine, which harms human health. So the Food

 and Drug Administration began requiring manufacturers to apply for

 approval before they could continue selling e-liquids. Because the

                                      2
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 3

 application process would be new, the FDA issued guidance for

 manufacturers.

       With this guidance, manufacturers blitzed the FDA with applications

 to market e-liquids bearing attractive flavors. Our petitions for review

 involve applications from two of these manufacturers: Electric Clouds, Inc.

 and Cloud 9 Vapor Products, L.L.C. With their applications, Electric

 Clouds and Cloud 9 submitted scientific data and marketing proposals to

 restrict access for children. The FDA rejected the applications without

 reviewing the proposed restrictions on access, and Electric Clouds and

 Cloud 9 seek judicial review on two main issues:

       1.     Notice: Because the application process was new, the FDA
              provided manufacturers with guidance. For example, the FDA
              suggested to manufacturers that they would need to show
              enough benefits to adult users to offset the risk of attracting
              children to e-liquids. Did this suggestion mislead
              manufacturers to believe that they wouldn’t need long-term
              clinical studies or comparisons involving flavored and non-
              flavored e-liquids? We answer no.

       2.     Harmless error: The FDA studied existing access restrictions
              based on age and found that they had generally proved
              ineffective. Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 proposed age
              restrictions like those that the FDA had regarded as ineffective.
              Did the FDA prejudice Electric Clouds or Cloud 9 by rejecting
              their applications without reviewing their proposed age-
              restrictions? We again answer no.

 1.    FDA approval is required to manufacture e-liquids.

       The FDA considered the applications against the backdrop of federal

 law, which permits approval only if the availability of the e-liquid “would

                                     3
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058    Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 4

 be appropriate” to protect public health. 21 U.S.C. § 387j(c)(2)(A). To

 apply this standard, the FDA must balance

        •     the chance that more adult users will transition away from
              tobacco use and

        •     the risk that more children will start using e-liquids.

 21 U.S.C. § 387j(c)(4)(A)–(B).

        In balancing these factors, the FDA has considered the advantages

 and disadvantages of e-liquids. The disadvantages mainly involve the

 presence of nicotine. See Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control

 Act, Pub. L. 111-31, § 2(3), 123 Stat. 1776, 1777 (2009); Avail Vapor, LLC

 v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409, 414–15 (4th Cir. 2022). So the FDA has set out to

 encourage adult users to transition to e-liquids without making them

 attractive to children. Breeze Smoke, LLC v. FDA, 18 F.4th 499, 504–05

 (6th Cir. 2021). This task was complicated by the growing use of flavors in

 e-liquids. These flavors attract children by making the e-liquids taste like

 fruit, mint, candy, desserts, and other sweets. See Avail Vapor, 55 F.4th at

 415.

 2.     The FDA denied the applications by Electric Clouds and Cloud 9
        to market flavored e-liquids.

        With this regulatory framework in place, Electric Clouds and Cloud 9

 applied for approval to manufacture flavored e-liquids bearing names like

                                     4
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 5

 Ice Cream Dream, Berries Gone Wild, Cap’n Berry Crack, Banana Colada,

 Apple Pie, and Candy Man. ER6–10, 306–23.

       The FDA denied the applications, finding that Electric Clouds and

 Cloud 9 hadn’t shown that their flavored e-liquids would help adult

 smokers enough to offset the risk to youth. ER14–15, ER325–26. The FDA

 considered the manufacturers’ scientific evidence, but regarded it as

 deficient based on the absence of

       •      long-term, product-specific studies of cigarette reduction or
              comparisons to tobacco-flavored e-liquids (such as a
              randomized controlled trial or longitudinal cohort study) or

       •      other evidence that had reliably evaluated the effect of
              flavoring on adults reducing their use of cigarettes or
              transitioning to e-liquids.

 ER14–15, 325–26.

       Given these deficiencies, the FDA rejected the applications without

 reviewing the proposed marketing plans. ER15, 325. The FDA

 acknowledged that marketing plans might theoretically reduce the risk to

 youth. ER35 n.xix, 352 n.xix. But the FDA pointed out that it hadn’t yet

 seen any marketing plans that would sufficiently offset the risk of

 attracting young consumers. Id.

 3.    The FDA didn’t mislead Electric Clouds or Cloud 9 by ambushing
       them with a new, undisclosed evidentiary standard.

       Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 argue in part that the FDA misled them

 by imposing rigid requirements after suggesting a more flexible approach.

                                     5
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 6

 The changes, according to Electric Clouds and Cloud 9, involved

 requirements for long-term clinical studies and comparisons between e-

 liquids based on the presence of flavoring.

       An agency must explain changes in its position, particularly when a

 regulated party has relied on the earlier position. FCC v. Fox Television

 Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515–16 (2009). Electric Clouds and Cloud 9

 argue that the FDA changed its position after fostering reliance on its

 written guidance, proposed rule, and statements in a public meeting. We

 disagree, concluding that the FDA didn’t deviate from its earlier

 statements. See Prohibition Juice Co. v. FDA, 45 F.4th 8, 20–21 (D.C. Cir.

 2022) (rejecting a similar challenge because the FDA’s final

 determinations were consistent with the FDA’s 2019 Guidance).

 3.1   The FDA’s statements didn’t mislead Electric Clouds or Cloud 9
       on the need for long-term clinical studies or the equivalent.

       Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 argue that three of the FDA’s statements

 had suggested to manufacturers that they could forgo long-term clinical

 studies:

       1.     the Guidance in 2019 for e-liquid manufacturers, FDA,
              Guidance for Industry, Premarket Tobacco Applications for
              Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (June 2019),

       2.     a 2019 proposed rule, Premarket Tobacco Product Applications
              and Recordkeeping Requirements, 84 Fed. Reg. 50,566 (Sept.
              25, 2019), and

       3.     an FDA public meeting on October 22–23, 2018.

                                     6
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058     Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 7

 3.1.1 The 2019 Guidance didn’t mislead the manufacturers.

       Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 argue that they were misled by the

 FDA’s guidance. Granted, “[t]he fair-notice requirement extends to

 informal guidance.” Breeze Smoke, LLC v. FDA, 18 F.4th 499, 504 (6th

 Cir. 2021). But the guidance itself stressed that

       •      it was not binding,

       •      the FDA would continue to adapt to new information, and

       •      manufacturers would need to show empirical data at multiple
              points in time.

       In both 2019 and 2020, the FDA issued guidance, beginning both

 times with warnings that they “represent[] the current thinking of the

 [FDA] on this topic” and are “not binding on the FDA or the public.”

 ER47, ER115 (emphasis added). The 2019 Guidance added that “guidances

 . . . should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory

 or statutory requirements are cited.” ER117. To emphasize the nonbinding

 nature of the guidance, the FDA included a bolded disclaimer on every

 page saying that it “[c]ontains nonbinding recommendations.” See Wages &

 White Lion Invs., LLC v. FDA, 90 F.4th 357, slip op. at 65 n.6 (5th Cir.

 2024) (en banc) (Haynes, J., dissenting) (“The conditional language used

                                     7
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 8

 by the FDA in its nonbinding guidance documents indicates that it never

 guaranteed that a certain type of evidence would be sufficient.”). 1

        With these disclaimers, the FDA emphasized in the 2020 Guidance

 that the requirements would change based on new information:

 “Manufacturers cannot have settled expectations to market unlawful

 products, especially in the face of evolving public health concerns.” ER72,

 Enforcement Priorities for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS)

 and Other Deemed Products on the Market Without Premarket

 Authorization (Revised): Guidance for Industry (Apr. 2020). Given the

 development of new information, the FDA reminded manufacturers that

 they

        •     would need to adapt their compliance policies based on
              “changed circumstances” and

 1
        The Fifth Circuit disagreed, reasoning that the D.C. Circuit had
 declined to consider cautionary language in two opinions: Southwest
 Airlines Co. v. FERC, 926 F.3d 851 (D.C. Cir. 2019), and Physicians for
 Social Responsibility v. Wheeler, 956 F.3d 634 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Wages &
 White Lion Invs., LLC v. FDA, 90 F.4th 357, slip op. at 27–40 (5th Cir.
 2024) (en banc). But in these opinions, the D.C. Circuit hadn’t addressed
 the impact of an agency’s cautionary language. For example, in Southwest
 Airlines Co., the D.C. Circuit had examined an agency’s sudden departure
 from longstanding procedures for making determinations. See Sw. Airlines
 Co., 926 F.3d at 856–58. The case hadn’t involved guidance or a
 suggestion that the agency’s statements weren’t binding. See id. The same
 is true of Physicians for Social Responsibility. This case had involved an
 agency directive departing from a policy established by a handbook and a
 report. Physicians for Soc. Respon., 956 F.3d at 645. There the court again
 had no occasion to discuss administrative guidance or a suggestion that the
 agency’s statements weren’t binding. See id.

                                     8
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058    Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 9

       •      couldn’t reasonably rely “on a . . . policy subject to change at
              any time.”

 ER79–80. 2

       Regardless of these reminders, the 2019 Guidance shouldn’t have

 induced Electric Clouds or Cloud 9 to omit long-term clinical studies or

 the equivalent. In the guidance, the FDA regarded long-term clinical

 studies as the strongest type of evidence; however, the FDA also

 acknowledged that existing data might suffice. For example, the FDA said

 that it would consider “established bod[ies] of evidence,” such as “existing

 2
       In their reply brief, Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 urge judicial
 estoppel for the first time, arguing that the FDA made contrary arguments
 in other federal cases. Petitioners’ Reply Br. at 12–13. We generally
 decline to address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief. See, e.g.,
 Belnap v. Iasis Healthcare, 844 F.3d 1272, 1293 n.16 (10th Cir. 2017).

       But we would reject this argument even if it had come earlier
 because the FDA hadn’t taken a different position in the prior cases. In
 those cases, the FDA emphasized that

       •      “the guidance [was] ‘not binding on FDA or the public’” and

       •      manufacturers could submit alternative forms of evidence, but
              only “if [the evidence] satisfie[d] the requirements of the
              applicable statutes and regulations.”

 Defendants’ Response to Industry Amicus Br. at 4, Am. Acad. of Pediatrics
 v. FDA, No. 18-883 (D. Md. June 26, 2019) (quoting the 2019 Guidance);
 see also Final Br. for Appellees at 26, Nicopure Labs, LLC v. FDA, No. 17-
 5196 (D.C. Cir. June 5, 2018) (“FDA has stated in draft guidance that
 scientific-literature reviews may be acceptable in some circumstances, and
 has discussed alternatives to randomized, controlled trials.” (emphasis
 added)). The FDA took the same position here. See pp. 10–11, below.

                                     9
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 10

  longer duration studies in the public literature.” ER160, ER127. But the

  manufacturer would still need to “bridg[e]” its own e-liquid to the existing

  data by showing why the existing data would apply to the new product.

  ER127; see ER160.

        The 2019 Guidance also clarified that

        •     the FDA would review “‘other valid scientific evidence’” to
              determine whether it was “sufficient to evaluate the tobacco
              product,” ER126 (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 387j(c)(5)(B)),

        •     “[n]onclinical studies alone [were] generally not sufficient,”
              ER126, and

        •      “[p]ublished literature reviews . . . [were] considered a less
              robust form of support.” ER161.

        Given these qualifications, seven federal appellate courts have

  rejected similar challenges, reasoning that the 2019 Guidance had not

  guaranteed approval without long-term clinical studies. Magellan Tech.,

  Inc. v. FDA, 70 F.4th 622, 629 (2d Cir. 2023); Liquid Labs, LLC v. FDA,

  52 F.4th 533, 541 (3d Cir. 2022); Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409,

  422–23 (4th Cir. 2022); Breeze Smoke, LLC v. FDA, 18 F.4th 499, 505–07

  (6th Cir. 2021); Gripum, LLC v. FDA, 47 F.4th 553, 559–60 (7th Cir.

  2022); Lotus Vaping Techs., LLC v. FDA, 73 F.4th 657, 672 (9th Cir.

  2022); Prohibition Juice Co. v. FDA, 45 F.4th 8, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

        For example, the D.C. and Seventh Circuits addressed similar

  reliance on the 2019 Guidance. In these cases, manufacturers of e-liquids

  argued that they had skipped long-term studies because of the 2019
                                     10
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 11

  Guidance. See Prohibition Juice Co., 45 F.4th at 23–24; Gripum, 47 F.4th

  at 559. The D.C. Circuit rejected this argument, explaining that the FDA

  hadn’t “guaranteed that unspecified other forms of evidence would

  necessarily be sufficient—only that they might be, so the FDA would

  consider them.” Prohibition Juice Co., 45 F.4th at 21 (citing the 2019

  Guidance at 12–13). The Seventh Circuit also rejected the argument,

  pointing out that the 2019 Guidance had “consistently reflected” the need

  for “product-specific long-term data . . . only if existing studies [had been]

  inadequately related to the proposed product.” Gripum, 47 F.4th at 559.

        These opinions are persuasive. 3 Unlike Electric Clouds and Cloud 9,

  the D.C. and Seventh Circuits relied on the entirety of the FDA’s guidance.

  Even if that guidance could have fostered reliable expectations, the

  entirety of the documents would have informed manufacturers of the need

  to

        •     tie their own e-liquids to the existing data or

        •     present new studies.

  3
        One circuit disagrees, pointing out that “law is not a nose-counting
  exercise.” Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC v. FDA, 90 F.4th 357, slip op. at
  20, 28–30 (5th Cir. 2024) (en banc). We agree, but we’re persuaded by the
  reasoning of the seven other circuit courts.

                                     11
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 12

  3.1.2 The proposed rule didn’t mislead the manufacturers.

        The manufacturers rely not only on the 2019 Guidance, but also on a

  proposed rule. There the FDA said that it didn’t expect each applicant to

  include a new long-term clinical study. But the FDA explained that with or

  without such a study, applicants would need to provide “both clinical and

  nonclinical investigations” offering “comprehensive information about the

  product’s likely health effects in the U.S. market.” 84 Fed. Reg. 50,566;

  50,619 (Sept. 25, 2019). The FDA added that an applicant might be able to

  forgo new studies by “bridging” its own e-liquid to existing studies. Id.

  And even then, the FDA cautioned, “information from nonclinical studies

  alone” would generally not suffice. Id.

        Given the whole of the proposed rule, it shouldn’t have misled

  Electric Clouds or Cloud 9 to think that it could forgo a new long-term

  clinical study or an effort to bridge the new e-liquids to an existing study.

  3.1.3 The 2018 public meeting didn’t mislead the manufacturers.

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 also argue that the FDA misled them at a

  public meeting in 2018. At that meeting, an FDA representative stated:

  “[I]t may be possible to support a marketing order for an [electronic

  nicotine delivery system], as an example, without conducting new non-

  clinical or clinical studies, given other data sources can support the

  [marketing application].” Transcript, Tobacco Product Application Review

  Public Meeting at 133–34 (Oct. 23, 2018).

                                     12
Appellate Case: 21-9577     Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 13

        This statement shouldn’t have misled Electric Clouds or Cloud 9. The

  representative said only that “it may be possible” to rely on existing

  studies. From that statement, Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 shouldn’t have

  assumed that they could forgo either a new long-term clinical study or any

  effort to bridge the new e-liquids to an existing study. 4

                                        ** *

        The FDA didn’t mislead Electric Clouds or Cloud 9 about the need to

  present either a new long-term clinical study or to bridge the new e-liquid

  to an existing study. 5

  4
       The Fifth Circuit concluded that the public meetings had misled
  tobacco manufacturers. There the Fifth Circuit relied on the FDA’s slides
  that

        •     included this statement and

        •     disclaimed a requirement for “specific studies.”

  Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC v. FDA, 90 F.4th 357, slip op. at 5–7 (5th
  Cir. 2024) (en banc). It’s unclear whether Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 are
  relying on the FDA’s statement at the public meeting or the slides.

        The slides themselves are not in our record. From the petitioners’
  description, however, the slides shouldn’t have misled anyone. Just
  because the FDA didn’t require a specific type of study doesn’t mean that
  Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 could omit any new studies or bridging
  efforts. After all, the FDA had repeatedly stressed that applicants would
  need to bridge their own products to valid scientific evidence. See Parts
  3.1.1–3.1.2, above.
  5
       Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 also cite the final rule, arguing that the
  FDA never said that it would require long-term studies. Premarket Tobacco
  Product Applications and Recordkeeping Requirements, Final Rule, 86

                                       13
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024    Page: 14

  3.2   The FDA didn’t mislead manufacturers about the need to
        compare e-liquids with and without flavoring.

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 also argue that the FDA misled them

  about the need to compare flavored and unflavored e-liquids. But the FDA

  repeatedly explained that manufacturers would need to present comparative

  data on the impact of flavors.

  3.2.1 The Tobacco Control Act should have flagged the need for
        comparative evidence.

        The Tobacco Control Act itself would have informed manufacturers

  that they needed to compare flavored e-liquids with other e-liquids. See

  Abhe & Swoboda, Inc. v. Chao, 508 F.3d 1052, 1060–61 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

  (stating that the underlying statute provided fair notice of regulatory

  requirements). For example, the Act requires manufacturers to show

  whether the new e-liquid “presents less risk than other tobacco products.”

  Fed. Reg. 55,300 (Oct. 5, 2021). But the final rule came after the
  application deadline, so the petitioners could not have relied on it.

        The final rule was consistent with the FDA’s prior statements, saying
  only that the FDA would consider evidence besides long-term studies:

        While this [Final Rule] does not necessarily require applicants
        to conduct new studies . . . FDA expects that it could not issue a
        marketing granted order unless an application contains data from
        a variety of sources, including both clinical and nonclinical
        investigations that give FDA comprehensive information about
        the product’s likely health effects.

  Id. at 55,387. With this language, the FDA warned that “information from
  nonclinical studies alone [was] generally not sufficient” for approval. Id.

                                     14
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 15

  21 U.S.C. § 387j(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). To evaluate that showing, the

  FDA must consider “the increased or decreased likelihood that existing

  users of tobacco will stop using such products.” 21 U.S.C. § 387j(c)(4)(A)

  (emphasis added).

        Given the statutory language, five federal appellate courts have

  concluded that the Act supplied adequate notice of the need to compare

  flavored and unflavored e-liquids. Magellan Tech., Inc. v. FDA, 70 F.4th

  622, 632 (2d Cir. 2023); Liquid Labs, LLC v. FDA, 52 F.4th 533, 542–43,

  543 n.12 (3d Cir. 2022); Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409, 427–28

  (4th Cir. 2022); Lotus Vaping Techs., LLC v. FDA, 73 F.4th 657, 670–71

  (9th Cir. 2023); Prohibition Juice Co. v. FDA, 45 F.4th 8, 23 (D.C. Cir.

  2022). 6 For example, the Second and Fourth Circuits addressed similar

  challenges based on the FDA’s guidance. In these cases, the courts rejected

  the challenges, reasoning in part that the Tobacco Control Act “explicitly

  contemplates that FDA must embark on a comparative inquiry.” Avail

  Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409, 427 (4th Cir. 2022); see Magellan Tech.,

  Inc. v. FDA, 70 F.4th 622, 632 (2d Cir. 2023) (following the Fourth

  Circuit’s analysis involving the Act).

  6
        Only one circuit court has found inadequate notice of the FDA’s
  scientific requirements. Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC v. FDA, 90 F.4th
  357, slip op. at 22–42 (5th Cir. 2024) (en banc). But that court did not
  discuss notice from the statute itself. See id.

                                     15
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 16

        This reasoning is persuasive. The Tobacco Control Act uses clear

  comparative language and should have expressly alerted manufacturers to

  the need to compare e-liquids based on flavoring.

  3.2.2 The FDA flagged the need for comparative evidence.

        Before the application process unfolded, the FDA had told

  manufacturers that they would need to compare products within the same

  category. For example, the 2019 Guidance recommended comparisons to

  “other . . . tobacco products within the same product category.” ER138

  (emphasis added). And in the proposed rule, the FDA encouraged

  manufacturers to “compare the health risks of [their] products to both

  products within the same category and subcategory, as well as [other]

  products.” 84 Fed. Reg. 50,566, 50,600 (Sept. 25, 2019) (emphasis added).

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 argue that the term category was too

  vague. But the FDA had repeatedly explained the youthful appeal of

  flavoring. For example, the 2019 Guidance stressed the importance of

  “scientific reviews of flavors” because of “the potential impact of flavors

  on . . . appeal to youth and young adults.” ER155. Given the potential

  effect on youthful consumers, the 2019 Guidance urged applicants to

  compare the risks from new products with the risks from “other tobacco

  products.” ER156.

                                     16
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 17

        The FDA repeated these recommendations in guidance published in

  2020. ER45. There the FDA again interpreted the data to “show that

  flavors are a strong driver for youth use.” ER65.

        The public meetings contained similar admonitions. In these

  meetings, the FDA encouraged manufacturers to show how

        •     “appeal of a specific product might be generalized to other
              products within the same brand family, or to similar products
              of other brands” and

        •     “consumers perceive the product and its flavor, as well as [the
              flavor’s] impact on intention to use the product, as well as
              actual use.”

  Transcript, Tobacco Product Application Review Public Meeting at 123–24

  (Oct. 23, 2018).

        The FDA thus repeatedly notified manufacturers of the need to

  compare the risks of e-liquids with and without flavoring. Without these

  comparisons, the FDA explained that it couldn’t adequately assess the

  increased risk of attracting children from the presence of flavoring. Given

  these explanations, the FDA didn’t mislead Electric Clouds and Cloud 9;

  they had adequate notice of the need to compare their flavored e-liquids

  with unflavored e-liquids. See Prohibition Juice Co. v. FDA, 45 F.4th 8, 23

  (D.C. Cir. 2023) (“Petitioners’ own unflavored or tobacco-flavored e-

  liquids were an obvious, otherwise-similar comparator against which to

  gauge whether the added risk of their flavored e-liquids are overcome by

                                     17
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 18

  those products’ added benefits to adult smokers.”); Lotus Vaping Techs.,

  LLC v. FDA, 73 F.4th 657, 671 (9th Cir. 2023) (same).

  4.    The FDA’s internal documents don’t show reliance on a new
        evidentiary standard.

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 argue not only that they were misled,

  but also that the FDA secretly planned to deny any application omitting

  long-term clinical studies (even if the application contained the equivalent

  information). For this argument, Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 rely on

        •     a July 2021 internal memorandum, which the FDA later
              superseded,

        •     an August 2021 internal memorandum, which the FDA later
              rescinded, and

        •     the review forms attached to each denial letter.

  These documents don’t suggest a plan to automatically reject applications

  lacking long-term clinical studies, and the internal memoranda had lapsed

  before Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 applied. 7

        In July 2021, the FDA internally circulated a memorandum on how to

  assess applications lacking long-term clinical studies. ER167–68. In the

  memorandum, an employee suggested that the FDA should deny any

  7
        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 wouldn’t have seen these documents
  until after they had applied. So Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 couldn’t have
  relied on these documents. See Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409,
  424 (4th Cir. 2022) (reasoning that the memoranda were “internal
  documents unlikely to create reliance interests”).

                                     18
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 19

  application lacking either a randomized controlled trial or long-term

  clinical studies. Id. The FDA superseded this memorandum a month later,

  and there’s no evidence that the FDA ever applied the earlier

  memorandum.

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 also rely on another FDA memorandum

  from August 2021, which suggested that applications for flavored e-liquids

  show “that the flavored products have an added benefit relative to that of

  tobacco-flavored” e-liquids. ER180. But the FDA rescinded this

  memorandum before accepting applications.

        Even if the memoranda hadn’t become obsolete, they didn’t suggest a

  plan to require long-term clinical studies. The first memorandum didn’t

  foreclose “reliance on other forms of rigorous evidence,” and the second

  memoranda “expressly required the agency to consider other forms of

  evidence if sufficiently robust.” Prohibition Juice Co. v. FDA, 45 F.4th at

  22; Liquid Labs v. LLC v. FDA, 52 F.4th 533, 541 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting

  Prohibition Juice, 45 F.4th at 22).

        No matter what the memoranda had said, they were superseded or

  rescinded before the FDA opened the application process. So four federal

  appellate courts have concluded that the memoranda in July and August

  2021 couldn’t have supported the existence of an internal plan. Magellan

  Tech., Inc. v. FDA, 70 F.4th 622, 630 (2d Cir. 2023); Liquid Labs, 52 F.4th

  at 540 n.7, 541 (3d Cir. 2022); Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409, 424

                                     19
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 20

  (4th Cir. 2022); Prohibition Juice Co., 45 F.4th at 22. For example, the

  Fourth Circuit explained that “these internal documents were just that:

  internal.” Avail Vapor, 55 F.4th at 424.

        We agree with these courts: the memoranda don’t reveal a secret

  plan, and they weren’t even in effect when Electric Clouds and Cloud 9

  applied.

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 rely not only on the internal memoranda,

  but also on the FDA’s review forms. These forms tell the reviewer to

  consider not only long-term clinical studies, but also other evidence.

  Reviewers had to note “whether the [applications] contain evidence from a

  randomized controlled trial, longitudinal cohort study, and/or other

  evidence.” ER20, 333 (emphasis added). So the review forms didn’t

  suggest a secret plan to nix any application omitting a long-term clinical

  study.

                                      ** *

        The FDA’s documents don’t show a secret change in position after

  the FDA’s issuance of informal guidance to manufacturers because

        •     the FDA superseded the July 2021 memorandum,

        •     the FDA rescinded the August 2021 memorandum, and

        •     the review forms showed the opportunity for manufacturers to
              rely on evidence besides long-term clinical studies.

                                     20
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 21

  5.    The FDA didn’t act arbitrarily and capriciously by finding
        insufficient scientific evidence for approval.

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 also argue that the denials were

  arbitrary and capricious based on the administrative record. See 5 U.S.C.

  § 706(2)(A) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard). We disagree.

        Congress designated the FDA as the agency with scientific expertise.

  Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. 111-31,

  § 2(44)–(45), § 3(1), (7), 123 Stat. 1776, 1780, 1782 (2009). So we

  conduct a “narrow” review and can’t substitute our judgment for the

  FDA’s. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

  Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

        In our view, the denials weren’t arbitrary and capricious. The FDA

  considered the evidence and acted reasonably in concluding that the

  applications didn’t merit approval under the statutory standard.

        Under that standard, Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 needed to show that

  the benefit to adult smokers would outweigh the risk of attracting children

  to tobacco. 21 U.S.C. § 387j(c)(4)(A)–(B). In trying to satisfy this

  standard, Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 submitted two kinds of evidence:

        1.    Literature reviews summarizing existing scientific studies and

        2.    surveys of current customers.

        The FDA acted reasonably when it regarded the literature reviews as

  insufficient for approval. The literature reviews acknowledged

                                      21
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024    Page: 22

        •     the need for more long-term studies comparing the harms from
              e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes and

        •     the presence of mixed results involving the impact of e-liquids
              on young individuals’ use of cigarettes. 8

  And in the literature reviews submitted by Electric Clouds and Cloud 9,

  there was no discussion about the impact of flavoring on underage use. See

  ER278–84. So the FDA had no evidence to compare the risks of

        •     flavored e-liquids and

        •     unflavored or tobacco-flavored e-liquids.

        When faced with similar literature reviews, six federal appellate

  courts have concluded that the FDA didn’t act arbitrarily and capriciously

  by rejecting applications based on insufficient evidence arising from the

  8
        The literature reviews stated:

        The evolving nature of [electronic nicotine delivery systems]
        presents challenges for the gathering of recent relevant studies
        of current methods of use. Current studies find that [electronic
        nicotine delivery systems] are much less harmful to the user than
        traditional combustible cigarettes, but more long term studies are
        needed.

        ** * *

        Some studies have found that for youth and young adults,
        [electronic nicotine delivery systems] may increase the use of
        ever using combustible cigarettes; however, other studies found
        that the reverse is true—that e-cigarette use in youth is limited
        primarily to individuals who already smoke combustible
        cigarettes.

  ER207.

                                       22
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 23

  presence of mixed results or the absence of studies addressing the impact

  of flavors on youth. Magellan Tech., Inc. v. FDA, 70 F.4th 622, 629 (2d

  Cir. 2023); Liquid Labs, LLC v. FDA, 52 F.4th 533, 541 (3d Cir. 2022);

  Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409, 420–21 (4th Cir. 2022); Breeze

  Smoke, LLC v. FDA, 18 F.4th 499, 506 (6th Cir. 2022); Lotus Vaping

  Techs., LLC v. FDA, 73 F.4th 657, 672–73 (9th Cir. 2022); Prohibition

  Juice Co. v. FDA, 45 F.4th 8, 21–22 (D.C. Cir. 2022). 9

        For example, the D.C. Circuit said that a literature review was

  “insufficiently rigorous” because of the dearth of “evidence from well-

  designed studies to determine whether e-cigarette flavors aid in smoking

  cessation.” Prohibition Juice Co., 45 F.4th at 21 (quoting the petitioners’

  literature review). Similarly, the Third Circuit concluded that the FDA had

  acted properly in denying an application based on uncertainty in the

  literature on the value of flavors in helping smokers to quit. Liquid Labs,

  52 F.4th at 541. This reasoning is persuasive here because Electric Clouds

  and Cloud 9 submitted literature reviews with equally mixed results.

  9
         The Fifth Circuit disagreed, concluding that the agency should have
  credited the tobacco manufacturers’ literature review. Wages & White Lion
  Invs., LLC v. FDA, 90 F.4th 357, slip op. at 33–34 (5th Cir. 2024) (en
  banc). But the Fifth Circuit did not discuss the mixed nature of the
  literature reviews. Cf. id., slip op. at 68, 75 n.12 (en banc) (Haynes, J.,
  dissenting) (noting that the majority didn’t address statements in the
  literature reviews that there was “not enough evidence . . . to determine
  whether e-cigarette flavors aid in smoking cessation” (quoting the
  petitioners’ literature reviews)).

                                     23
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 24

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 also presented surveys, but the FDA

  identified four defects:

        1.    The surveys hadn’t compared flavored and unflavored e-
              cigarettes.

        2.    The surveys had captured only a single point in time, so they
              couldn’t help to assess product switching or cigarette reduction
              from the “use of these [flavored] products over time.” ER326.

        3.    The customer surveys had been online and voluntary, which
              restricted participation to existing customers.

        4.    One survey had included only 314 participants, and another
              survey had included only 30 participants.

        We’re not the first court to address similar survey results: Six federal

  appellate courts have already concluded that similar surveys weren’t

  rigorous enough to support approval. Magellan Tech., Inc. v. FDA, 70

  F.4th 622, 628 (2d Cir. 2023); Liquid Labs, LLC v. FDA, 52 F.4th 533, 541

  (3d Cir. 2022); Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409, 421, 425 (4th Cir.

  2022); Breeze Smoke, LLC v. FDA, 18 F.4th 499, 506 (6th Cir. 2021);

  Gripum, LLC v. FDA, 47 F.4th 553, 557 (7th Cir. 2022); Lotus Vaping

  Techs., LLC v. FDA, 73 F.4th 657, 673 (9th Cir. 2023).

        For example, the Ninth Circuit considered customer surveys

  measuring a single point in time. Lotus Vaping Techs., 75 F.4th at 666.

  Measurement of a single point in time posed a problem, the Ninth Circuit

  explained, because the surveys hadn’t enabled “reliable evaluation of

  behavior change over time.” Id. at 673 (quoting the FDA’s denial order).

                                     24
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 25

  The Third Circuit also considered a survey that hadn’t compared all the

  manufacturer’s flavored e-cigarettes with unflavored e-cigarettes,

  concluding that the results hadn’t shown “a benefit to flavoring” or

  provided “meaningful information regarding actual switching or

  reduction.” Liquid Labs, 52 F.4th at 541. The same is true of the customer

  surveys submitted by Electric Clouds and Cloud 9.

        The FDA also rejected the literature reviews and surveys because

  they didn’t relate to the e-liquids made by Electric Clouds and Cloud 9. In

  response, Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 argue that the FDA

        •     used a double-standard by relying on a scientific consensus to
              regard flavors as dangerous to children,

        •     failed to consider whether these dangers had applied to the e-
              liquids that Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 were making, and

        •     relied on a consensus involving closed systems even though
              Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 used open systems.

        We reject these arguments and conclude that the FDA acted

  reasonably in relying on a scientific consensus. The Tobacco Control Act

  requires the FDA to consider all available information. See 21 U.S.C.

  § 387j(c)(2)(A); see also Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409, 419 (4th

  Cir. 2022) (recognizing the “FDA’s broad statutory mandate to determine

  from the totality of the evidence”). In considering such information, the

  FDA legitimately found a consensus showing the dangers from flavoring

  regardless of the type of device. ER31.

                                     25
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 26

        The FDA found no such consensus on the value of flavoring on adults

  trying to quit. See ER35 (“Although . . . bridged data from the literature

  may still be appropriate for many new products, including tobacco-flavored

  [electronic nicotine delivery systems], robust and direct evidence . . . has

  been needed when the known risks are high as with all flavored [electronic

  nicotine delivery systems].”). The difference led the Fourth Circuit to

  reject a similar challenge:

        Whereas the evidence on the role of flavors in promoting youth
        use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] was established as
        a matter of scientific consensus, there was no comparable
        showing of the benefits that flavored [electronic nicotine
        delivery systems] have for adult smokers in promoting switching
        or cessation. Moreover, evidence showed that tobacco-flavored
        [electronic nicotine delivery systems] may offer the same type
        of public health benefits as flavored [electronic nicotine delivery
        systems], in encouraging adult cigarette smokers to switch to
        [electronic nicotine delivery systems] and decreasing the use of
        combustible cigarettes. Such tobacco-flavored products,
        however, do not pose the same degree of risk of youth uptake as
        fruit or dessert-flavored products. As such, FDA required [the
        manufacturer] to provide strong, product-specific evidence
        demonstrating its products would provide an extra benefit to
        current smokers over that of other lower-risk products.

  Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409, 421 (4th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up);

  see also Prohibition Juice Co. v. FDA, 45 F.4th 8, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2022)

  (rejecting a similar challenge based on the consensus as to the risks from

  flavored products and inconclusive information as to the benefits).

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 disagree with the FDA, arguing that the

  existing information involves systems that were closed rather than open.

                                     26
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058    Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 27

  But the FDA could reasonably regard the role of flavor as consistent

  between closed systems and open systems. See Avail Vapor, LLC, 55 F.4th

  at 427 (rejecting a similar challenge based on the FDA’s conclusion that

  the risks of flavoring were consistent between open and closed systems);

  Prohibition Juice Co., 45 F.4th at 26 (rejecting a similar challenge based

  on the FDA’s assessment that the risks from flavoring were consistent and

  equally applicable to open and closed systems).

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 point to a 2021 study, which they

  characterize as proof that few children use open-system devices. But the

  administrative record doesn’t include this study, and it didn’t exist when

  the FDA decided the applications submitted by Electric Clouds and Cloud

  9. 10 See note 11, below (discussing our inability to stray beyond the

  administrative record).

        At that time, the FDA could reasonably conclude that children

  preferred flavored e-liquids regardless of device type. The FDA thus

  10
        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 also cite an article, which quoted a
  former FDA commissioner. Petitioners’ Opening Br. at 44. When the
  individual made the quoted statement, he had left the FDA and was serving
  as a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and as a special
  partner at a venture capital firm. Nicholas Florko, Former FDA
  Commissioner Calls for a Full Ban on Pod-Based E-Cigarettes, Stat News
  (Nov. 12, 2019) https://tinyurl.com/mdrjpyhw, quoted in Petitioners’
  Opening Br. at 44. So his comments didn’t represent the FDA’s position,
  and Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 do not point to evidence supporting his
  statement.

                                     27
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058     Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 28

  explained that it had learned that “the removal of one flavored product

  option prompted youth to migrate to another [electronic nicotine delivery

  system] type that offered the desired flavor options, underscoring the

  fundamental role of flavor in driving appeal.” ER32.

        This explanation doesn’t suggest that the FDA ignored the

  distinctions between products. To the contrary, the FDA relied on new

  evidence showing that children care more about flavors than the devices.

  See, e.g., ER31–32 (explaining the data showing the consistent role of

  flavor in youth use of all tobacco products). 11

        The FDA used the new information to carry out the statutory mandate

  to balance

        •      the known risks that flavored e-liquids posed to children and

        •      the potential benefit to adults wanting to quit.

  The FDA didn’t act arbitrarily or capriciously by regarding flavors as

  attractive to children even when using open systems. See Prohibition Juice

  11
        The petitioners argue that open-system devices are big and clunky,
  making them unappealing to youth. The Fifth Circuit credited this
  argument, pointing to photographs of large open-system devices. Wages &
  White Lion Invs., LLC v. FDA, 90 F.4th 357, slip op. at 12 (5th Cir. 2024)
  (en banc). In our case, the FDA said that new open-system devices are
  often small, pointing to pictures submitted by the amici. Brief of Amici
  Curiae Medical, Public Health, and Community Groups in Support of
  Respondent at 11. But none of these photographs or pictures are in our
  record. So we don’t rely on them. See, e.g., Atteberry v. Finch, 424 F.2d
  36, 39 (10th Cir. 1970) (stating that judicial review is limited to evidence
  in the administrative record).

                                      28
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 29

  Co. v. FDA, 45 F.4th 8, 22, 26 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (rejecting the double-

  standard argument and upholding the FDA’s denial of approval to market

  an open-system e-liquid); Liquid Labs, LLC v. FDA, 52 F.4th 533, 544–45

  (3d Cir. 2022) (upholding the FDA’s denial of approval to market an open-

  system e-liquid because flavors appealed to children regardless of the

  device type); Breeze Smoke, LLC v. FDA, 18 F.4th 499, 506, 508 (6th Cir.

  2021) (upholding the FDA’s determination that generalized evidence

  included in an open-system e-liquid application could not overcome the

  clear preference of children for flavored e-cigarettes); Gripum, LLC v.

  FDA, 47 F.4th 553, 559–60 (7th Cir. 2022) (concluding that without

  product-specific evidence, the manufacturer of an open-system e-liquid

  hadn’t satisfied its burden of proof); Lotus Vaping Techs., LLC v. FDA, 73

  F.4th 657, 671 n.14 (9th Cir. 2023) (concluding that the FDA didn’t

  arbitrarily disregard device types because the scientific consensus had

  shown that children preferred flavored e-liquids). 12

  12
         In their reply brief, Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 argue that the
  FDA’s studies show that open systems are less popular with youth than
  tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes. Petitioners’ Reply Br. at 19. For this
  argument, Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 cite a statement by the FDA; but
  this statement doesn’t discuss open systems. Id. (citing ER30). To the
  contrary, the cited page suggests that youthful consumers prefer fruit
  flavors over tobacco flavors without any mention of the devices being
  used. ER30 (stating that “66.8% of youth [electronic nicotine delivery
  system] users aged 13 to 17 reported using fruit, followed by . . . 13.3%
  for tobacco flavor”). When open systems were incorporated, the FDA

                                     29
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 30

        According to Electric Clouds and Cloud 9, the FDA reached different

  results for similarly situated manufacturers. But Electric Clouds and Cloud

  9 present no support for this claim, and we see no evidence of different

  standards for manufacturers of similar e-liquids. See Prohibition Juice Co.,

  45 F.4th at 26 (rejecting this argument). To the contrary, the FDA

  consistently rejected evidence involving literature reviews and surveys:

   Circuit Case Affirming FDA         Manufacturers’ Scientific Evidence
   Denial
   Prohibition Juice Co. v. FDA, 45   Online, one-time voluntary studies;
   F.4th 8, 21–22 (D.C. Cir. 2022)    mixed literature review.
   Magellan Tech., Inc. v. FDA, 70    Focus group of only 24 participants; 2-
   F.4th 622, 627–29 (2d Cir. 2023)   week online study of 18 existing
                                      customers; a study of 15 participants; an
                                      online survey of 400 smokers and over
                                      1,000 non-smokers; insufficient literature
                                      review.
   Liquid Labs, LLC v. FDA, 52        Study lacking a comparison between
   F.4th 533, 537, 541 (3d Cir.       flavored e-liquids with unflavored e-
   2022)                              liquids; survey that failed to discuss
                                      switching or reduction; mixed literature
                                      review.
   Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55        Online study for 2 weeks; focus group of
   F.4th 409, 417, 420 (4th Cir.      39 participants; national attitude survey;
   2022)                              study of 18 participants; mixed literature
                                      review.
   Breeze Smoke, LLC v. FDA, 18       Online survey of existing retail-store
   F.4th 499, 506 (6th Cir. 2021)     customers; mixed literature review.
   Gripum, LLC v. FDA, 47 F.4th       Consumer surveys; insufficient literature
   553, 557 (7th Cir. 2022)           review (no “bridge”).
   Lotus Vaping Techs., LLC v.        Survey of existing customers; survey of
   FDA, 73 F.4th 657, 666, 672–73     thousands of participants; insufficient
   (9th Cir. 2023)                    literature review (no “bridge”).

  found that 76% of high-school and middle-school students preferred
  flavors for the open systems. ER31, 348.

                                     30
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 31

  The FDA thus did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by regarding the

  scientific evidence as inadequate to approve the petitioners’ applications.

  6.    Even if the FDA should have reviewed the marketing plans, the
        error would have been harmless.

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 also argue that the FDA erred by failing

  to review their marketing plans. But even if an error had taken place, it

  would have been harmless because the FDA would have regarded the

  marketing plans as deficient for reasons already stated.

        The Tobacco Control Act incorporates the harmlessness standard

  from the Administrative Procedure Act. See 21 U.S.C. § 387l(b)

  (instructing courts to apply 5 U.S.C. § 706); see also All Indian Pueblo

  Council v. United States, 975 F.2d 1437, 1443 (10th Cir. 1992)

  (considering harmlessness in the review of agency decisions). Under this

  standard, the petitioners must show that the FDA’s alleged error was

  harmful. See St. Anthony Hosp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 309

  F.3d 680, 691 (10th Cir. 2002).

        Generally, we cannot affirm an agency’s decision on grounds that the

  agency didn’t supply. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947).

  But an exception exists if the error clearly didn’t affect the outcome. See

  Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140, 1145 (10th Cir. 2004) (explaining that

  we apply the harmless-error standard when “no reasonable administrative

                                     31
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 32

  factfinder, following the correct analysis, could have resolved the factual

  matter in any other way”).

        This exception applies here. The FDA had warned before that similar

  marketing plans had proven ineffective. So the petitioners’ marketing plans

  couldn’t have overcome the other deficiencies in the applications.

        These marketing plans focused on restrictions designed to prevent

  children from getting the e-liquids. Cloud 9’s plan consisted of a single

  paragraph, promising only warnings and a 21+ age-verification system. 13

  ER365. Electric Clouds submitted a more detailed plan, which proposed

  requirements for identifying customers at retail stores, age verification for

  online sales, child-resistant packaging, and prohibitions on marketing or

  packaging that targeted minors.

        But the FDA had already rejected these types of restrictions. For

  example, in the 2020 Guidance, the FDA had addressed similar measures,

  which included

        •     technology to verify the customer’s age when making online
              purchases,

  13
        In its opening brief, Cloud 9 cited a more detailed marketing plan.
  But this marketing plan was not part of the administrative record or
  included with Cloud 9’s application. And Cloud 9 concedes that the more
  detailed marketing plan isn’t material to the issue. Petitioners’ Reply Br. at
  24 n.6, 24–25. So we need not consider the more detailed marketing plan
  cited in Cloud 9’s opening brief. See note 11, above (stating that we
  consider evidence only if it was in the administrative record).

                                     32
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058     Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 33

        •     enhanced monitoring to ensure that retailers complied with the
              age requirements,

        •     contractual penalties for retailers that sell tobacco to minors,
              and

        •     restrictions on the amount of e-liquids that customers can buy
              within a given time-period.

  The FDA concluded that these measures hadn’t stopped children from

  using e-cigarettes: “The reality is that youth have continued access to these

  products in the face of legal prohibitions and even after voluntary actions

  by some manufacturers.” ER66 (emphasis added). The FDA thus warned

  manufacturers that marketing plans wouldn’t suffice if they focused only

  on “how the product was sold.” Id.

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 don’t assert that their proposed

  marketing restrictions differ from the marketing restrictions that the FDA

  had already found ineffective. Because Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 had

  already failed to present adequate scientific evidence, their marketing

  plans couldn’t have salvaged their applications.

        In similar circumstances, six federal appellate courts have found

  similar errors harmless for marketing plans like those submitted by

  Electric Clouds and Cloud 9. Prohibition Juice Co. v. FDA, 45 F.4th 8, 16,

  24–25 (D.C. Cir. 2022); Magellan Tech., Inc. v. FDA, 70 F.4th 662, 630–

  31 (2d Cir. 2023); Liquid Labs, LLC v. FDA, 52 F.4th 533, 543–44 (3d Cir.

  2022); Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409, 417, 425–27 (4th Cir.

                                     33
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058    Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 34

  2022); Breeze Smoke, LLC v. FDA, 18 F.4th 499, 508 (6th Cir. 2021);

  Lotus Vaping Techs., LLC v. FDA, 73 F.4th 657, 666, 674–75 (9th Cir.

  2023).

        For example, the Ninth Circuit considered a marketing plan that

        •       relied on age verification and

        •       required that the product be “strictly marketed and sold to
                adults in adult-only retailers and through age-verified online
                websites.”

  Lotus Vaping Techs., 73 F.4th at 674 (quoting the manufacturer’s

  marketing plan). But the Ninth Circuit concluded that any error would have

  been harmless because

        •       those measures “track those that the FDA found were
                ineffective to counterbalance the risk of youth use” and

        •       the manufacturer had not “otherwise argue[d] that any of
                marketing tactics were novel.”

  Id. at 675.

        The Fourth Circuit similarly addressed harmlessness when the

  marketing plans “focused solely on age verification and avoiding

  marketing that would make its products attractive to youth.” Avail Vapor,

  LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409, 426 (4th Cir. 2022). The court regarded these

  measures as “insufficient,” but suggested that the manufacturer could have

  supported its application with “novel access restrictions beyond those that

  the FDA previously determined were not working.” Id.

                                      34
Appellate Case: 21-9577    Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 35

        The Third Circuit agreed that “marketing plans would not change the

  result” when the manufacturers had “not explained how the [proposed]

  approaches . . . differ from ones previously found insufficient or how [the

  proposed] marketing plans would have cured other noted deficiencies in its

  applications.” Liquid Labs, LCC v. FDA, 52 F.4th 533, 544 (3d Cir. 2022).

        We are persuaded by the reasoning of the Third, Fourth, and Ninth

  Circuits. Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 presented marketing plans focused

  on age verification; these plans involved only the kinds of measures that

  the FDA had already rejected.

        Two circuits have concluded that similar errors weren’t harmless,

  basing these conclusions on two different reasons. The Fifth Circuit has

  rejected harmlessness based on its interpretation of Calcutt v. FDIC, 598

  U.S. 623 (2023). Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC v. FDA, 90 F.4th 357,

  slip op. at 3, 49–52 (5th Cir. 2024) (en banc). The Eleventh Circuit has

  rejected harmlessness because the marketing plans included novel

  marketing restrictions that the FDA hadn’t previously discussed. Bidi

  Vapor v. FDA, 47 F.4th 1191, 1205 (11th Cir. 2022). Neither of these

  rationales apply here.

        Calcutt does not bar consideration of harmlessness. To the contrary,

  Calcutt prohibits courts from basing harmlessness on a rationale that the

  agency didn’t invoke. Calcutt, 598 U.S. at 624, 628. This prohibition

  doesn’t apply here because we’re basing harmlessness on the FDA’s

                                      35
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 36

  existing approach to marketing restrictions, not a reason that we’ve

  detected on our own. And Calcutt acknowledged that the court may not

  need to remand when the agency’s prior actions make the outcome clear.

  Id. at 629–30.

        The Eleventh Circuit rejected harmlessness because there the

  manufacturers had used marketing plans unlike those that the FDA had

  addressed. Bidi Vapor, 47 F.4th at 1205 (discussing proposed

  “Trace/Verify technology” and an authentication system for preventing

  counterfeit products); see also Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409,

  417–18, 427 (4th Cir. 2022) (distinguishing the novel measures in Bidi

  Vapor from “garden variety restrictions” like age-verification services);

  Lotus Vaping Techs., LLC v. FDA, 73 F.4th at 675 (distinguishing age

  verification and restrictions on retailers from the novel measures addressed

  in Bidi Vapor).

        Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 don’t contend that their marketing plans

  contained any novel measures, but argue that the FDA

        •     ignored the importance of device types and

        •     could have required extra measures to overcome deficiencies in
              the proposed plans.

  These arguments are unconvincing for two reasons.

        First, Electric Cloud and Cloud 9 say that because they manufacture

  e-liquids for open-system devices, the FDA shouldn’t have assumed that

                                     36
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 37

  age restrictions would be ineffective. But the FDA warned manufacturers

  that flavored e-liquids had become increasingly popular among children

  regardless of device type. See pp. 25–27, above. Given that warning, other

  circuits have rejected arguments about prejudice based on the FDA’s

  failure to review similar marketing plans for open-system e-liquids.

  Prohibition Juice Co. v. FDA, 45 F.4th 8, 26 (D.C. Cir. 2022); Liquid

  Labs, LLC v. FDA, 52 F.4th 533, 545 (3d Cir. 2022); Lotus Vaping Techs.,

  LLC v. FDA, 73 F.4th 657, 671 n.14 (9th Cir. 2023). That reasoning is

  persuasive here.

        Second, Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 agree that the FDA should have

  considered the possibility of imposing measures to reduce the risk to

  children. But the manufacturers bore the burden to show that their e-

  liquids weren’t too risky for children. See 21 U.S.C. § 387j(c)(2)(A)

  (stating that the FDA “shall deny” applications that fail to make the

  required showing). Electric Clouds and Cloud 9 failed to carry that burden.

        We thus agree with other circuits that found no prejudice when the

  FDA had failed to review similar marketing plans:

                                     37
Appellate Case: 21-9577   Document: 010111006058   Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 38

   Circuit Case Affirming         Manufacturers’ Proposed Marketing Plans
   FDA Denial
   Prohibition Juice Co. v.       Age-verification measures on websites;
   FDA,                           marketing and packaging not directed and
   45 F.4th 8, 15–16 (D.C. Cir.   minors.
   2022)
   Magellan Tech., Inc. v.        Age-verification measures.
   FDA, 70 F.4th 662, 631 (2d
   Cir. 2023)
   Liquid Labs, LLC v. FDA,       Age-verification measures; mystery-shopper
   52 F.4th 533, 544 (3d Cir.     program; marketing not directed at minors.
   2022)
   Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA,       Non-descriptive names; age verification in
   55 F.4th 409, 417–18 (4th      stores; program to bind distributors.
   Cir. 2022)
   Lotus Vaping Techs., LLC v.    Age verification in stores; age-verification
   FDA, 73 F.4th 657, 666 (9th    measures on websites; individual purchase
   Cir. 2023)                     limits for online sales; age-gated industry
                                  trade shows; program to bind retailers.

  7.    Conclusion

        The FDA didn’t mislead Electric Clouds or Cloud 9 about what to put

  in their applications, and the FDA could reasonably regard the literature

  reviews and customer surveys as inadequate.

        Along with the literature reviews and customer surveys, Electric

  Clouds and Cloud 9 submitted marketing plans. Though the FDA didn’t

  review these marketing plans, any possible error would have been

  harmless. These plans relied on youth-prevention measures that the FDA

  had previously rejected as ineffective.

        We thus deny the petitions for judicial review of the denial of the

  applications to market flavored e-liquids.

                                     38