Bad news for a B&M I go to
- Thread starter Outcast
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I am sure this had nothing to do with the situation:
"Tredwell said he learned sometime in 2015 that Assistant Attorney General Toni Hamburg-Clithero had started an online e-cigarette business under the name Vermont Vapors. Tredwell’s lawyer sent her a cease-and-desist letter, arguing the name was so similar to his company’s that it was a violation of trademark law.
Correspondence Tredwell supplied to VTDigger shows that Hamburg-Clithero disagreed and requested $1,000 to cover the costs of a new domain name and rebranding of her company. Tredwell threatened to sue and says he never heard back."
That is clearly nowhere near as bad as a vapor shop saying "much better for a person than smoking."
"Tredwell said he learned sometime in 2015 that Assistant Attorney General Toni Hamburg-Clithero had started an online e-cigarette business under the name Vermont Vapors. Tredwell’s lawyer sent her a cease-and-desist letter, arguing the name was so similar to his company’s that it was a violation of trademark law.
Correspondence Tredwell supplied to VTDigger shows that Hamburg-Clithero disagreed and requested $1,000 to cover the costs of a new domain name and rebranding of her company. Tredwell threatened to sue and says he never heard back."
That is clearly nowhere near as bad as a vapor shop saying "much better for a person than smoking."
Why is it then whenever the Onion Skin is peeled back on things like this that there Always seems to be some Appearance of Conflict of Interest with some Government Employee and an a Legislation or, in this case, a Judicial Action?
Now, now, let's not prejudge Attorney General Donovan's attitude as at all influenced by the fact one of his assistant attorney generals was also seeking to open a vape business. 
Nope, no conflict here. Move it along, nothing to see.............
Nope, no conflict here. Move it along, nothing to see.............
"Appearance of Conflict of Interest" ????? IMHO, starting a business in direct competition and coming up with a name for said business by adding an "s" at the least fails the fair ethics test for anybody, least of all an elected/appointed government official......in the AG's office of all places.
I'm not clear whether your post intends to point out the frequency of such occurrences or disagreement with my query if it played any roll in the investigation? Given that the linked article quotes similar advertising claims by competing businesses who so far have escaped the scrutiny lends credence to the possibility that it did play a role.
Now, now, let's not prejudge Attorney General Donovan's attitude as at all influenced by the fact one of his assistant attorney generals was also seeking to open a vape business.
Nope, no conflict here. Move it along, nothing to see.............
Yeah... And what makes it so Hysterical is Vermont Vapor served it up to the AG's Office on a Silver Platter by say'n that Vaping was better for you than Smoking. At least in Dr. Tredwell's opinion.
Honestly, I can definitely see the FDA taking action on this, and they would be supported by the law, even if they weren't supported by, you know, the truth.
Yeah... And what makes it so Hysterical is Vermont Vapor served it up to the AG's Office on a Silver Platter by say'n that Vaping was better for you than Smoking. At least in Dr. Tredwell's opinion.
However, as far as the state Consumer Protection Act, who gets to decide if the claims are false? Where's the burden of proof?
I'm Not all that familiar with Vermont Law.
But I don't see a Huge Jump if you Violate a Federal Regulation regard Marketing/Advertising that a State could also bring an Action against you for Deceptive Practices for doing so.
And it might be Very Hard for a Vape Shop to argue that All of the products they Sell are Better than Smoking. Because wouldn't the Judge want to see Study Data on Every Product that a Seller sells to corroborate the Seller's Claim?
I suppose that would depend on the judge. The claim in question wasn't "all of our products are better than smoking" it was the general claim "vaping is better for you than smoking" and I'm positive I could find plenty of evidence to support that general claim.
The federal regulation isn't really concerned with the truth of the claim, it's concerned with whether or not the FDA has authorized them to make that claim.
But here's the Deal Les.
Something like the Study(ies) that came out of the UK were Evaluating e-Cigarettes on the Population Level. Not on the Individual level.
Population Evaluations make No Guarantees that what the Population Average is will be what the Individual Statistic will be.
If a Seller says that "e-Cigarettes are Better than Smoking", is it Reasonable to Assume that the e-Cigarettes the Seller Sells are Better than Smoking? At least in the Opinion of Dr. Tredwell. Who just happens to be Selling e-Cigarettes to Make Money.
This is where Sellers get in Trouble.
And this is where People who have Law Degrees should be Smart Enough to know that as a Seller, you are Asking your States Justice Department to Shine a Light on you by making such Claims.
Now maybe that is what Vermont Vapor wanted to do. Be a Rosa Parks or something? And have the FDA and the State AG's Office come down on them.
I dunno?
I'm no lawyer, but I think a statement made in what is essentially the "About Us" section of a website, not made specifically about any particular product, which has been echoed by international health institutions, doesn't really constitute a deceptive practice. That is, of course, just my opinion.
I agree with you; no harm, no foul. But what a brilliant way to bring this incident forefront.
Good luck.
Just hard to say what a Judge would do in considering a Violation of a Consumer Act. They tend to live in the Guilt/Innocence based on Admissible Evidence world.
Last edited:
I guess if he would have taken down the egregious claims when told to, he could have avoided the $50,000 fine.
Oh, wait! I didn't see anything reporting that he was told to do that before any fine! If not, it is hard to understand how anybody can defend this level of penalty!
Oh, wait! I didn't see anything reporting that he was told to do that before any fine! If not, it is hard to understand how anybody can defend this level of penalty!
Could be.
Or maybe if Vermont Vapor had Cooperated with the Vermont AG Office, none of this would have gotten this far?
Vermont Vapor Up in Smoke for Allegedly Deceptive E-Cig Marketing Practices | JD Supra
Who's to say?
They are saying the same "save our kids" thing up here in Canada to make sure the public is kept in fear. The guy in the video says he protecting the Vermonters and the KIDS. Once the government says kids the public goes into stupid mode and then follows blindly to protect the kids. Its a old ploy that is still being used to keep the uninformed following and people are still falling for it. In a lot of kids minds, smoking is considered uncool now. I remember the smoke pit at school being jam packed at breaks but nowdays only a few kids are smoking at the curb cause they aren't allowed to smoke on public property.
A town near me just made the age to buy Tobacco Products 21 starting today. Do they think this is going to stop the young adults who want to smoke or use alternative tobacco products?
- Status
Similar threads
