Lawsuits are coming

[TropicalBob]

Interesting story in today's newspaper that I think has application to e-smoking.

It seems a product named Airborne swept America, purporting to be a way to stop the common cold from the very start. Just dissolve an Airborne tablet and drink a glass of medicated water. Many users swore by it. Medical authorities didn't buy it.

State attorneys general sued -- and won.

My state, Florida, has begun divvying up the $7-million settlement from the company that made Airborne. How did this happen?

Airborne made claims that it was a "cold-prevention remedy" (based on vitamin content), that it was a "sore throat remedy," a "germ fighter," and an "allergy remedy."

Prove it, the lawsuit said.

Ooops. Lots of anecdotes from happy customers meant nothing. That's not proof.

Airborne set out to obtain clinical proof of its effectiveness. That wasn't good enough. The judgment ruled that Airborne's ad claims were "not substantiated by reliable and competent scientific evidence at the time the claims were made."

Want to summarize unproven -- thus false -- claims for e-smoking:

1. Easy to quit smoking. Absolutely no study has been done. A quit-smoking claim now by any device advertiser could result in a judgment that bankrupts that company tomorrow.

2. Smoke anywhere. Not if a property owner forbids the practice. Thus the flat claim is false.

3. Healthier than tobacco cigarettes. An assumption is not proof. There have been no studies to show e-smoking is healthier than smoking tobacco cigarettes. We certainly hope so, but hope is not admissable evidence.

4. No carcinogenic substances. Provable in a court of law?

And remember from the Airborne case that any statement already made can result in a massive damage award. Remember that states, not the federal government, sued. I'd say quite a few e-smoking sellers who misrepresent their products should be shaking right about now. Only one state attorney general has the power to bring you down for your false and misleading statements.

[slianfoxob]

for some reason, i see the first lawsuit erupting over "smoking anywhere." almost every supplier touts this and it's such bull. i still treat my ecig like it's an analog when it comes to smoking bans. in my home, it's a different story.

but seriously, i'm waiting for someone to get arrested or ticketed for esmoking indoors in a public building and then filing suit because some supplier told them they could use it anywhere...

[Catman51]

Yes, if anyone is going to start a lawsuit rolling, it would be Smoking Everywhere. The people they have at their carts and even their website has lots of untruths.

[slianfoxob]

Yes, if anyone is going to start a lawsuit rolling, it would be Smoking Everywhere. The people they have at their carts and even their website has lots of untruths.

well, i wasn't specifically talking about the company Smoking Everywhere but rather the claim the ecigs can be smoked everywhere by almost every supplier, even some of the White Hats.

However, i wouldn't be suprised if it starts with Smoking Everywhere. The people they have working those kiosks are a bunch of boobs. They barely know enough about their own product much less the ever-expanding realm of ecigs

[SuperStack]

I really think the term "e-smoking" is very problematic on its own. Because we are categorically not smoking anything. This false terminology actually hurts our cause quite significantly IMO to those who are ignorant of what it is, even if it has advantages as a marketing ploy by sellers.

It makes it much more dicey for public acceptance as soon as people hear the word "smoking" mentioned, which could then result in legal ramifications.

[robw]

Here is the thing. The industry is comprised of resellers of china companies. The attorney general can sue the resellers but not the china manufacturer. China is not in the Jurisdiction of a State.

So for those resellers who are violating the publics trust by making claims that can not be backed by a scientific study, you only hurt your self. Those reseller who make no claims at all, then you just have to worry about the instruction manual that is included with the ecig. There are some claims made in some of them that can come back to bite you.

[slianfoxob]

Those reseller who make no claims at all, then you just have to worry about the instruction manual that is included with the ecig. There are some claims made in some of them that can come back to bite you.

All the more reason for suppliers to throw out those ridiculous manuals and create their own with better information.


Foxy

[Chris From Cali]

I hope it really doesn't come to this. I have however noticed that a few websites are taking the honest approach such a Steve from Puresmoker, everything on his FAQ page is no BS straight up. I was also on Totally wicked liquid.com and they had a FAQ page which was pretty darn blunt and honest as well. I hope that some of the other companies will change there ways and do the same thing. Again, only time will tell I suppose.

[K0rvet]

The only other time I was successfully able to quit analogs was with a Nicotrol inhaler. Nothing else kept me away. E-cigs are comparable to Nicotrol. The only difference is heated atomization of nicotine. Since Nicotrol is only available by prescription, studies have been conducted my the AMA and FDA on it. That is the only solid defense I could think of... ?

[Chris From Cali]

The only other time I was successfully able to quit analogs was with a Nicotrol inhaler. Nothing else kept me away. E-cigs are comparable to Nicotrol. The only difference is heated atomization of nicotine. Since Nicotrol is only available by prescription, studies have been conducted my the AMA and FDA on it. That is the only solid defense I could think of... ?

At least we have the brains going, but, I don't think that would be strong enough in court.