Predicate Product Exists: Altria In Negotiations To Acquire

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jon Deak

Full Member
Nov 19, 2014
15
19
Los Angeles
This is From The News Article....What are your thoughts?

Is it possible for any one electronic cigarette to dominate the entire electronic cigarette industry? The answer is “yes” and the company that may be best positioned to establish that dominance is none other that the world’s largest tobacco company, Altria.

ECCR sources have learned that Altria has been secretly negotiating to purchase what the FDA has referred to as the ‘predicate product’, meaning an e-cigarette device that was sold in the United States before February 15, 2007. Sources likewise confirm that those negotiations included a seven figure offer to buy the predicate product.

While the majority of the industry, and the FDA itself, were unaware if the predicate product even truly existed, Altria understood the implications of the predicate product and assigned a team to determine its whereabouts and ownership. They were successful in identifying the product and then made contact with the owner or owners in December of 2014.


Negotiations for the predicate product began in December 2014.

Negotiations were held in Pennsylvania and Virginia but we are told that little progress has been made thus far and it is possible that other suitors have become involved in the race to possess the enigmatic
predicate product. The possibilities and ramifications are enormous and it is possible that Imperial Tobacco (owner of Blu Cigs), RJ Reynolds (owner of the Vuse), Electronic Cigarettes International Group Ltd or any of a handful of other major players will be very interested in the outcome.


The significance of possessing the predicate product cannot be overstated. The holder of the predicate product will enjoy a path to market that will not be available to any competitor, which in turn, may actually limit the ability of a competitor to bring a product to market at all.

In fact, it is probable that more than 90% of current e-cigarette brands and possibly all e-liquid vendors will be unable to afford the lengthy and expensive FDA new product submission process and will simply cease operation. Popular high powered box mods, tank systems and RDAs will have to spend millions to receive FDA approval, a proposition that will likely be unattainable for most. The ramifications of this will have serious consequences for 30,000 vape shops that rely on a variety of vendors.

Imagine the entire
electronic cigarette industry being limited to a select few products. It could happen. The best products may be able to sell to larger concerns. If a powerful business interest decides to take on the cause of financially backing popular e-cigarette products through the FDA approval process it may preserve a number of vape shops and provide vapers with more options but keep in mind that new product approval in the tobacco category, historically, may take years to achieve.


The owner or owners of the predicate product are unknown, as is the exact nature and form of the product. We can confirm that the predicate product exists and that it was first sold commercially in Pennsylvania in 2006. We are working feverishly to obtain further details and you can expect new developments to be released as they happen. ECCR will continue to have unprecedented inside access to a negotiations that would impact one of the hottest and fastest growing industries in the world.


How does this affect you? Try not to get too used to your mod and favorite flavored ejuice.
Cloud chasers may just have to find another sport. The predicate product actually exists and it could change everything for the e-cigarette industry.

This is an ongoing development and ECCR has exclusive access to credible sources. We will be following this intently in the coming days. We have a number of exclusive details to share at this time, beginning when this all started last April, 2014.

Source:
http://www.electroniccigaretteconsumerreviews.com/predicate-product-exists-altria-in-negotiations-to-acquire/
 
Last edited:

Jon Deak

Full Member
Nov 19, 2014
15
19
Los Angeles
this is the proverbial nail in the coffin.
it is becoming clear what the forth coming
regulations will look like.
mike

Your comment pretty much sums it up. I don't think a lot of people understand the importance and significance of this particular story. Altria could potentially gain control over the entire ecig industry which would shut down close to 30,000 vape shops in America. Out of all the things we as vapors have feared in the years, this is probably the one thing we should fear the most. Rumor has it that the owners of the Predicate Product are going to release a statement in the next 24 hours and they may do it with ECCR news or Forbes. Stay Tuned...
 

bigdancehawk

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 27, 2010
1,462
5,477
Kansas City, Missouri
Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, but I don't see this as a major game changer. The predicate product will likely have little mass appeal. The FDA has been very strict about granting substantial equivalence status, and we already know that the proposed regulations, in their current form, will eliminate all but a handful of products.
 

aikanae1

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 2, 2013
8,423
26,259
az
I'm not to surprised. I bet they knew of it's existance before their lawyers wrote the deeming regs and gave them to the FDA.

What I want to know is if those early ecigs had refills in the form of liquid nic? I believe they did and if so that could make it much harder to eliminate liquid nic sales. Anyone can make a mod in their garage. Not so with liquid nic. There's a phrase in the MSA that prevents making it impossible to wipe out an entire tobacco category and it would be sweet to see that protection extended to liquid nic imo.

The primary difference I see with having a predicate product is the ease and expense getting to market. The rules were designed to prevent new products (after the "light cig" debacle). Since they can't eliminate ecigs, there was some leverage for compromise required.

Of course it'll be interesting how loosely the FDA applies their predicate product standard (whatever it is) since even a change in supplier or the amount supplied or packaging have been used as reason for denials in the past of other products. We may hear a new round of fabrications. I'm sure corporate marketing is already on it.





Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
 

readeuler

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 17, 2014
1,203
1,945
Ohio, USA
Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, but I don't see this as a major game changer. The predicate product will likely have little mass appeal. The FDA has been very strict about granting substantial equivalence status, and we already know that the proposed regulations, in their current form, will eliminate all but a handful of products.

I'm withholding judgement until anything concrete rises, but if true, here's what I'm thinking.

It means a company that is in no sense of the word strapped for cash would rather pay millions for an inferior predicate product, than face the future approval process.

If this is the right way to view it, that's quite scary.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
66
The sensationalized article by Matt McConnell that was posted by John Deak contains many inaccurate and misleading statements, and presents no evidence to back up the sensationalized claims.

While predicate e-cigs may exist (as at least three companies were selling e-cigs in 2006, including Ruyan America and NJOY), and while Altria, Reynolds, Lorillard and/or speculative entrepreneurs may have spent (or may spend) hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars to purchase a predicate e-cig product and introduce it into the US market, all e-cig products sold back in 2006 were were junk compared to the worst cigalike on the market today.

I also posted many notes on ECF and other vaping forums in 2013 and 2014 soliciting predicate e-cig products (that resulted in lots of inquiries, but no predicate products), as well as many notes on ECF delineating the FSPTCA's SE application guidance, Q&A's, approvals, rejections and SE application withdrawals since 2011.
 
Last edited:

lintz69

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 13, 2008
574
47
43
Poconos, PA
I have to admit it confuses me too. I have been a member here for years, and trust me I have seen threats come and go. Companies come and go. I don't know how an ecig from 2007 would even come close to being as good as what we have now. I for one would not like to go back to 901s, 801s with horrible flavors. But we are the most vast resource on the internet. ECF is where most people come to see what's happening. And if ECCR says they have reliable sources, they haven't let me down yet on reviews or other news, maybe there is some truth to this. I for one would like to know all the possible outcomes. To know they enemy is to be able to defeat thy enemy.
 

Jon Deak

Full Member
Nov 19, 2014
15
19
Los Angeles

aikanae1

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 2, 2013
8,423
26,259
az
I tried to find evidence as well as some chinese suppliers and there wasn't product in hand results. There was mention on ECF and another forum active at the time. Some of the earliest looked like big cigars. You Tube has a few 2006-2007 UK Ruyen commercials posted. They all seemed to allow refills by dripping into the cartridge by consumers. The most value I could see coming from a predicate product was that little bottle of nic and someone would need the exact formula to comply with FDA's current requirements that expect an exact match. The Chinese are just as interested as we are in keeping the vaping industry growing and if they weren't able to locate evidence, I find it hard to believe anyone can that will make much difference - unless the rules governing a predicate product were significantly bent.

Weiss (NJoy) appeared to be one of the first importers. I think it's a long shot that he still has a little bottle of pre-2007 nic in his freezer.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

aikanae1

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 2, 2013
8,423
26,259
az
it seems there was more than one predicate product prior to 2007.
may be there was a factory in China branding a predicate product
for whoever wanted their own brand name?
mike
Watch the early commercials. They looked more like cigars. Ruyun didn't "market" to the US until 2008. The regs say "marketed in the US" which may mean that consumers may have bought them over the internet, but does that mean they were officially "marketed" in the US? There's a 50/50 chance the answer is no since a yes would open floodgates for foriegn cigarettes too. This is a problem with applying tobacco regs to ecigs.

Another value with locating a predicate product could be as a gateway to a court case. I think making ingredients public was held up in court for over 10 years. That is one of the few things that BT does do successfully. Whatever happens will be interesting.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

skoony

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2013
5,692
9,952
68
saint paul,mn,usa
i think i have got it so i'll run this buy you guys.
as it says below "an e-cigarette device that was sold in
the United States before February 15,2007"
interpreted literally does this mean a product
that was shipped here then,marketed for purchase
as opposed to direct internet sales to private
citizens from foreign sources?
it would explain a lot.
regards
mike
‘predicate product’, meaning an e-cigarette device that was sold in the United States before February 15, 2007. Sources likewise confirm that those negotiations included a seven figure offer to buy the predicate product.
 

aikanae1

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 2, 2013
8,423
26,259
az
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread