Current methods of remote biochemical verification of smoking abstinence have significant limitations that may negatively impact the validity of study findings. Self-reported abstinence remains a justifiable choice as a primary outcome in remotely conducted trials. We raise this issue to add to the ongoing discussion of the merits of biochemical confirmation in randomized smoking cessation trials. This discussion has a long history. It has been nearly 20 years since the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification [3] first recommended that the value of biochemical confirmation must be determined in the context of each specific study, taking into consideration issues such as the differential risk of misreporting in study arms as well as the potential bias created by requiring biochemical confirmation, because this assessment can result in invalid outcomes when the logistical complexity and participant burden result in missing data. Even the recent consensus guideline update, which favors biochemical confirmation over self-report, recommended this assessment be conducted when it is feasible to do so [2]. This begs the question of when it is feasible to include biochemical confirmation. Consistent with prior recommendations [3], confirmation seems feasible and appropriate in clinic-based trials where there is in-person contact and where the assessment does not significantly burden participants or create logistical complexities that could inadvertently bias outcomes. In other types of trials, confirmation may not be feasible, and we would argue, not necessary or advisable. A prime example is large, remotely-conducted trials such as the Graham et al. [1] study. It would have been logistically complex and expensive to collect biological samples (e.g. saliva, blood, or urine) or conduct remote observation of rapid tests (e.g. cotinine saliva test strips or expired carbon monoxide [CO]) among the geographically dispersed participant sample. Unobserved sample collection raises the possibility that biological samples are not provided by the actual study participant. However, even observed data collection, such as done via a secure video, is subject to problems. Not all participants are willing to participate in video visits and, even among those who are, when some forms of identity verification have been required (e.g. showing a photo of themselves completing the test), adherence has been low (~50%) [4]. Additional challenges include the fact that some individuals do not own, or do not know how to use, the devices and software necessary for remote observation and testing, as well as questions about the validity of test results under conditions of real-world self-administration—whether because of user error, technical failures, or faulty products. The latter issues are increasingly being acknowledged among researchers on professional listservs and in other professional discussion forums. The extent of problems with remote testing may well be under-reported in the literature, although some published studies have reported substantial rates of unusable samples [5] or inconclusive results [6] as well as systematically different readings from a smartphone-connected remote CO monitor relative to other models made by the same company [7]. Because of the rapid increase in remote trials during the COVID-19 pandemic, their challenges are becoming increasingly evident, again shining a light on the important question of when biochemical confirmation is necessary to ensure appropriate methodological rigor and confidence in a study's reported treatment effect. Although false reporting of abstinence clearly does occur [8], there are still many gaps in our knowledge about how to conduct feasible and valid remote biochemical verification. These issues warrant further empirical examination before requiring confirmation in remotely conducted cessation trials as standard practice. However, as we hope this commentary helps illuminate, this practice may be unnecessary and even ill-advised, depending on the context of the trial. None. J.L.H. has received research support from Pfizer. J.B.M. has no competing interests to disclose. Jaimee Heffner: Conceptualization. Jennifer McClure: Conceptualization.