As someone who is (arguably) part of Class in the suit (from what I've read), I'm tempted to write / go after the lawyers (in a reasonable way) and put them on spot of "known harms." I think they can't back that up. I would like to do that publicly and yet, right now am just spouting off rather than being entirely serious. I realize it'd probably be best to have my own atty if I chose to go in that direction.
The case really does hinge on 2 points as far as I can tell (after perusing 100% of the document, though not thoroughly):
1 - Most importantly is notion that DA is harmful and that a) 5P knew this, specifically as it relates to
vaping, plus b) that this harm can be shown as specifically harming vapers
2 - that 5P knowingly lied to its customer base about the presence of DA in its liquid
On the second one I think they will get nailed. But if the first one is not accurate, then it could come down to "no harm, no foul."
There's about 80 other nuances to be had in the case, but those really have to do with how DA has been treated in the industry (both vaping and smoking, but likely will only come up for vaping industry). I really do think if 5P is nailed on this, it would open up floodgates to any other vendor that claimed DA free and it was found they were "lying." And if this is in fact ANTZ driven, then really won't matter what vapers feel ought to happen, ANTZ will seek to bankrupt industry at a time when FDA has policies in place designed to bankrupt the industry.
IMO, vaping consumers ought to fight, and fight very hard, to overcome this lawsuit for sake of vaping. But I'm kinda thinking many vapers will say "5P had it coming to them" and filter what the document is saying as "it can really only affect 5P if plaintiffs win."