Marquee Background
Marquee Background

Offit Kurman Blogs

Healthcare

If your medical device requires FDA 510k clearance but you put it on the market without a 510k, what happens?

July 22, 2015

By Michael H. Cohen

If your medical device requires FDA 510k clearance but you put it on the market without a 510k, what happens?moreMany clients have asked us: do we have a medical device? Do we need to submit a 510k? What happens if we don’t file a 510k submission? Can we fly under the FDA radar?

Bob has a new consumer product, consisting of an antenna and a receiver, which “beam information at the quantum level” to sync patients’ brainwaves and help patients heal. Anecdotally, the product has been wildly successful. Bob has 50 distributors across the country, and consumer testimonials about remarkable results, from reversing hearing loss to recovering from neurological conditions.

Must Bob file a 510k?

To properly advise Bob, we have to go back to the definition of a medical device, review classification of devices, talk about the intended use doctrine and labeling, and let Bob know about FDA’s enforcement options.

Medical Device Definition

The first question is whether you have a medical device.

Look to the definition. A medical device is:

an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is –

(1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them,

(2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, or

(3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and

which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes.

One of the keys here is whether the intended use of the product is for diagnosis or treatment of disease.

Remember that FDA has announced it will be more hands-off if you have a low-risk, general wellness product.

The product must be intended for only general wellness use, and must present a very low risk to users’ safety. For example: exercise equipment, audio recordings, video games, software programs, and other products commonly available from retailers — again, provided the intended use is not to diagnose or treat cancer, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, migraines, or any other disease or condition.

General wellness can include: maintaining or encouraging a general state of health or a healthy activity, or, associating the role of healthy lifestyle with helping to reduce the risk or impact of certain chronic diseases or conditions. For example, claims can be made about weight management, physical fitness, stress management or relaxation, sleep management, or even enhancing flow of qi.

Sometimes it can be difficult to determine whether the intended use is diagnostic or treatment-oriented, as opposed to something else such as “general wellness.” In such cases, it’s best to contact FDA lawyers who can advise on whether you have a regulated medical device.

510k v PMA

The next step is regulatory classification.

Class I devices typically are exempt from premarket review requirements. Class II devices usually require a 510k, while Class III devices usually require a PMA.

The 510k has a lower regulatory burden than the PMA, in that the 510k must demonstrate that the medical device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed “predicate device.” This boils down to the new medical device having either the same technological characteristics as the predicate device (including appropriate clinical or scientific data, if deemed necessary by FDA), or, having different technological characteristics but essentially being as safe and effective.

The PMA is not a comparative submission, but rather must demonstrate that the medical device is safe and effective in and of itself.

During research and development of a new device, or of a new use for an existing device, manufacturers collect safety and effectiveness data to support their PMA or 510k by, among other things, conducting clinical trials. Before starting the clinical trial, the manufacturer must obtain an approved investigational device exemption (IDE).

OTC Medical Device vs. Prescription Medical Device

OTC medical devices must include in their labeling, “adequate directions for use” which inform the layperson how to use the device safely and for the purposes for which it is intended.

This includes intended use; quantity of dose; frequency, duration, time. route or method, of application or administration; and preparation for use.

Prescription medical devices need not have adequate directions for use on the label. Prescription devices must be prescribed under the supervision of a licensed practitioner, and the label must include: “Rx only” or “Caution: Federal law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of ” (physician, dentist, veterinarian, etc.).

Adulteration and Misbranding

The federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA) prohibits adulteration and misbranding.

A device is adulterated if there is something wrong with it that makes it unsafe and/or ineffective. For example, the device was made under unsanitary conditions or did not comply with the requirement for PMA approval.

A device is misbranded if there is something wrong with its labeling that could lead to unsafe or ineffective use. This includes false or misleading advertising, inadequate instructions for use, or failure to obtain the required 510k clearance.

As well, a device that requires 510k clearance but lacks such clearance is considered by operation of law to be a Class III device that requires a PMA, and therefore is also adulterated. (21 USC 513(f)(1)).

And, a device that is “about to be significantly changed or modified in design, components, method of manufacture, or intended use” (21 C.F.R. § 807.81(a)(3)) requires a 510k. Significant changes include: (1) a change or modification of the device that could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device; or (2) a major change or modification in the intended use of the device.

The bottom line is that failing to submit a PMA or 510k when required for a medical device, is illegal and can trigger FDA enforcement action.

Penalties

What can FDA do?

Civil monetary penalties (CMPs) have a maximum penalty of $15,000 per violation, not to exceed $1 million for all violations in a single proceeding.

FDA can issue prior warnings before more serious enforcement.

Prior warnings can include:

  • FDA warning letter
  • FDA civil suit, administrative action, or other regulatory correspondence
  • Notification by other state, municipal, or federal agencies involving the same or similar violations
  • FDA-483 (list of inspectional observations) provided by an FDA investigator at the conclusion of an inspection
  • Discussion of objectionable conditions by FDA investigator with firm, as documented in the 483
  • Verbal notification from FDA to top management
  • Written or oral advisory communication by FDA
  • Industry meetings during which FDA discusses violations, if firm’s attendance is documented

FDA’s current policy is that will usually provide prior warning before taking more serious enforcement action, but there are exceptions–notably, patient harm. FDA has a matrix for CMP fees, and will look at factors including:

  • Nature of violations
  • Circumstances
  • Extent of violations
  • Gravity (including patient harm)
  • Ability to pay
  • Effect on continued business
  • History of prior violations
  • Degree of culpability
  • Other factors “as justice may require”

In its Guidance for FDA Staff, Civil Money Penalty Policy, FDA states that civil monetary penalty (CMP) cases “should serve to eliminate the profit from violative activity and/or to provide non-compliant firms with the financial incentive to correct violations.”

When a firm markets a device without required 510k clearance, the Guidance states, FDA usually documents prior warning of the violation, before imposing CMP, unless the violations represent a danger to health or are egregious in nature. Further, persons who are repeat violators (including those that fluctuate between being ‘out of compliance’ and ‘in compliance’ from one inspection to the next) may be good candidates for CMP action.

FDA may also impose CMP for promotion and advertising violations, failure of sponsors to meet IDE reporting requirements, or failure of clinical investigators to submit completed case reports.

Interestingly, the Guidance states that where in the past, FDA has used seizure or injunction for low-risk devices, FDA now will likely impose civil monetary penalties.

In cases where there has been fraud or other criminal activities, FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigation (OCI) may investigate. Should the investigation reveal evidence of criminal activity, FDA would work with the Department of Justice for possible prosecution of those involved. For misdemeanor violations, the government need not show criminal intent. An FDCA misdemeanor may be punished by a maximum of year in prison and a fine of $100,000 for an individual, $200,000 for a corporation. Felonies involve violations where there was “intent to defraud or mislead,” or a repeat offense. Company officers can be held personally (criminally) responsible in both criminal prosecution and monetary proceedings.

Back to Bob

One item that’s critical in Bob’s marketing is that he targets his product toward patients with a variety of named conditions. FDA can easily search for these terms online and find Bob’s products.

Bob has to be careful not to make diagnostic or therapeutic claims for his products. He should monitor the testimonials his company posts, or LIKES on social media, as these too could indicate a diagnostic or therapeutic intended use.

If Bob has a medical device, we will need to find out whether it is Class I, II or III.

We’ll need to know more about Bob’s product. He may have a biofeedback device (21 CFR 882.5050): “an instrument that provides a visual or auditory signal corresponding to the status of one or more of a patient’s physiological parameters (e.g., brain alpha wave activity, muscle activity, skin temperature, etc.) so that he patient can control voluntarily these physiological parameters.”

FDA regulates a biofeedback device as a Class II device if it is a prescription battery-powered device that is indicated for relaxation training and muscle reeducation. Otherwise, the device may be Class III.

When Bob talks about brainwave optimization he may be indicating a different mechanism and intended use than when he talks about “quantum” effects. Bob may or may not have a general wellness, low-risk medical device.

As well, Bob must have substantiation for the claims he makes regarding efficacy. If Bob does not have competent and reliable scientific evidence, he may find himself at the butt of enforcement action by FTC as well as FDA, and, sued by private plaintiffs as well.

Overall, Bob will need legal advice by FDA lawyers experienced with medical device regulation, to properly assess what he has.

One thing is for sure: unless Bob nefariously beams his quantum device so that regulators will say, “these droids are not worth your trouble,” he’ll be on FDA’s radar – it’s no surprise that the Agency has Internet access too, and can easily find Bob’s website and all the claims he makes about his consumer product. With radar ubiquitous, flying under is no longer an option. (See FDA exerts authority over medical devices with genomics).

Also, if Bob wants to have a realistic exit strategy, he should pay close attention to regulatory strategy, compliance, and documentation. M&A due diligence will uncover any holes in Bob’s FDA legal strategy.

Our FDA lawyers have counseled ventures and entrepreneurs like Bob as to their medical device, FDA obligations. Particularly given our interest in complementary and alternative medical therapies and holistic health, we’ve been interested in FDA legal issues long before FDA issued its guidance on general wellness products. Connect with us if you want to assess whether your product is a regulated medical device.

Contact our healthcare law and FDA attorneys for legal advice relevant to your healthcare venture.

Categories: Healthcare

Related People

Related Services

  • Posts
  • About
  • Subscribe

Firm Highlights

  • Blog Posts
    Powering the Future Maximizing Energy Storage Value with David Braun
    In this episode of the MSSIA Insight Podcast, host Matthew Karmel, Chair of Offit Kurman’s Environmental & Sustainability Practice, sits down with David Braun, Chief Commercial Officer at Intelligent Generation, to explore how distributed energy storage is creating new opportunities for businesses, developers, and the broader energy grid.With more than 35 years of experience in the energy and utility sector, David shares how battery storage can help commercial and industrial customers earn revenue, reduce energy costs, and improve power reliability. The conversation explores revenue stacking, including how batteries can generate value through wholesale energy markets, reduce capacity and transmission charges, store excess solar energy, and provide backup power during outages or disruptions.Matthew and David also discuss the evolving energy storage landscape across New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, highlighting differences in state policies, utility programs, and opportunities for virtual power plants. David explains how industry collaboration through MSSIA can help advance effective energy policies and accelerate project development.Looking ahead, David shares his perspective on the future of distributed energy storage, the transition toward a more interconnected and resilient grid, and the importance of accurately modeling battery economics to demonstrate project value and support investment decisions. In this episode, you’ll learn about: How battery storage can help businesses earn revenue, save money, and protect operations. What revenue stacking means and how multiple battery applications create economic value. How rising capacity and transmission charges are influencing energy storage opportunities in PJM. The differences in energy storage policies and incentives across New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. The role of virtual power plants in supporting grid reliability and managing energy demand. Why accurate financial modeling, customer load profiles, and utility rate structures are critical to evaluating battery projects. How MSSIA supports industry collaboration and policy advocacy across the Mid-Atlantic. Whether you're a solar or storage developer, investor, contractor, attorney, or clean energy professional, this episode offers practical insights into the economics, policy considerations, and emerging opportunities shaping the distributed energy storage market. About the MSSIA Insight Podcast Powered by Offit Kurman and presented in partnership with the Mid-Atlantic Solar & Storage Industries Association (MSSIA), the MSSIA Insight Podcast explores the legal, regulatory, and business developments shaping the solar and energy storage industries across New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Hosted by Matthew Karmel, the podcast features conversations with industry leaders and subject matter experts, delivering actionable insights to help clean energy professionals navigate an evolving industry. New episodes are released every other month.   Join our next policy committee call as a guest to see firsthand the impact we're driving: https://forms.gle/8WqmDvdJUKBh35Qw7
  • Events
    AIA Tri-State Conference
    Princeton will serve as the backdrop for three days of connection, learning, and design leadership. From keynotes to tours to the Tri-State Design Awards, this year’s conference is designed to go far beyond education sessions. Kick off the week with pre-conference intensives and individual state component Design Award celebrations, followed by three days of education, inspiration, networking, and design excellence at the 2026 AIA Tri-State Conference—featuring pre-conference intensives, three keynote speakers, 25 education sessions, curated tours, an expo, spec academies, and the AIA Tri-State Design Awards—bringing together architects and design professionals from New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania to connect, learn, and celebrate the best of the profession. G2. Designing Secure Practices: Cybersecurity, Data Privacy, Contractual Provisions, and Insurance Risks for Architects (4:00 PM - 5:30 PM) Architects and design professionals increasingly rely on cloud platforms, BIM software, and digital tools to manage sensitive data, creating cybersecurity and privacy risks. A single incident can trigger liability claims, regulatory obligations, reputational harm, and insurance challenges. Yet many firms underestimate how contracts, insurance, and internal practices intersect during a breach. This program offers legal and insurance perspectives on cyber risk in architecture, examining liability exposure, risky contract provisions, and mitigation strategies. A cyber insurance expert will explain policy responses, coverage gaps, coordination with professional liability, and best practices for aligning insurance with contractual risk and protecting firms from evolving cyber threats. Learning Objectives: Identify key cybersecurity and data privacy risks faced by architecture firms and explain how these risks can impact professional liability and project outcomes. Analyze common contractual provisions to determine which clauses may increase exposure to cyber incidents and propose strategies to mitigate these risks. Evaluate the scope and limitations of cyber insurance policies, including coordination with professional liability coverage, to determine how a policy would respond in a breach scenario. Develop actionable risk management strategies by integrating legal, contractual, and insurance considerations to protect sensitive client and project data.
  • Events
    The 2026 Economic, Tax, and Accounting Updates
    We are looking forward to the Mid-Atlantic CFO Roundtable's next event on November 13, 2026. This is a program with topics built for Finance Executives. We are extremely fortunate to have three excellent speakers: Dr. Daraius Irani, Vice President of Business and Public Engagement at Towson University; Mike Stankus, Tax Office Managing Principal at BDO; and Daniel Wahlberg, Managing Partner of Acclare Solutions. The economy is rapidly changing with various factors driving it. The November 3rd midterm elections may also have an impact. Our three expert presenters will discuss the ramifications of the election, and the current year updates to GAAP financial reporting and Federal and State income taxes. Please join us for what will surely be an informative and timely discussion. Meet Our Speakers: Daraius Irani, Ph.D. • Towson University Vice President, Business & Public Engagement Dr. Daraius Irani serves as Vice President of Business and Public Engagement at Towson University as well as the chief economist for the Regional Economic Studies Institute (RESI) at Towson University, a policy group providing economic, fiscal impact, and policy analysis to public and private entities.  Dr. Irani is often called upon to provide economic presentations to organizations across Maryland. He has appeared on numerous television programs and in local and regional print media. Dr. Irani holds a Ph.D. in economics from University of California, Santa Barbara. Dan Wahlberg • Acclare Solutions Managing Partner With over 28 years of experience, Dan Wahlberg is a recognized leader in audit and assurance for the Mid-Atlantic’s middle market business community. As a licensed CPA in Maryland and Virginia, Dan has led assurance practices at top regional firms, including serving as Baltimore Audit Managing Partner and Assurance Practice Leader at BDO USA in Baltimore and as Partner and member of the Management Committee at Hertzbach & Company P.A which merged into BDO in 2020. His expertise centers on delivering clarity, strategic guidance, and proactive solutions to middle-market businesses across Baltimore and beyond. His entrepreneurial spirit has led him to begin a new CPA firm this year with four other CPAs serving the business community. Dan holds a Bachelor of Science in Accounting from Rutgers University and began his career at PWC in New York. He is also deeply engaged in the community, previously serving as President of ACG Maryland and current Board member and as Audit Committee Member for The Associated: Jewish Federation of Baltimore.  Mike Stankus • BDO USA LLP Tax Office Managing Principal Mike Stankus is the Tax Office Managing Principal for the firm’s Baltimore office. He has more than 16 years of experience providing tax planning and preparation and management advisory services for his clients. Mike focuses on advising privately held businesses and their owners on effective growth and tax strategies. He also performs various engagements for mergers and acquisitions and complex cost accounting projects and projections. In addition, he represents various government contracting clients before the DCAA and assists with FAR compliance. Mike’s areas of concentration include working with government contractors, professional service firms, construction companies, and homebuilders.