FDA Lawsuits more concerning

[Jman8]

I just want to go on record that, to me, the recent trend of class action lawsuits against vaping vendors is more concerning than the FDA (yet to be announced) regulations.

I see them as quite likely an orchestrated campaign by ANTZ to attack the industry, change the playing field. Most of it based on the junk science stuff they've floated out there for last few years. Some of it based on the scientific fear mongering that our side has engaged in (i.e. DA/AP issues), but all of it showing that science can, rather easily, be misused to manipulate the masses.

I do not think it is coincidence that it is happening now, weeks before FDA deeming. I think it is the ANTZ version of CTA's, and I think the repercussions will at least be used as grounds for steamrolling harsher regulations. Worst case scenario is it will possibly result in a MSA type agreement between BV (or whoever survives deeming) and lawyers/plaintiffs.

I wish I had the answer(s) to overcoming this, but currently feel alone in my concern on this. I really do see it as bigger deal than FDA deeming. I think at very least, pro-vaping enthusiasts ought not to side with plaintiffs on the suit claims unless they can readily back up those points via reasonable discussion and/or science. I pity those that even try to justify plaintiff's perspective.

 

[puffon]

I agree.
I'm surprised we have not seen any Morgan & Morgan ads on TV yet.

 

[Rossum]

What trend? I'm only aware of one, and that one is, IMO, deserved. Companies that outright LIE to their customers SHOULD be sued; nothing wrong with that. Now I don't particularly care for some of the points raised in that particular suit, but I strongly disagree that this is, "more concerning than the FDA (yet to be announced) regulations."

 

[skoony]

ANTZ rhetoric is certainly fueling the fire. I don't believe there is any direct
backing coming from them. They certainly will profer all the moral support
they can muster and, exploit the situation to the fullest.
Regards
Mike

 

[zoiDman]

If a Company has done Nothing Wrong, and has Acted in Good Faith, why should they Fear a Lawsuit?

 

[edyle]

lawsuits were an inevitability with b&m's selling off mechs (especially 'hybrid style" mechs with no centerpin) and unsafe chemistry batteries to people who were clueless

 

[Jman8]

What trend? I'm only aware of one, and that one is, IMO, deserved. Companies that outright LIE to their customers SHOULD be sued; nothing wrong with that. Now I don't particularly care for some of the points raised in that particular suit, but I strongly disagree that this is, "more concerning than the FDA (yet to be announced) regulations."

Ok, based on your commentary, you must only be aware of the NJOY lawsuit for false advertising. Or perhaps it is the Vuse lawsuit for deceiving their customers. Or is it another one?

Perhaps we can discuss your strong disagreement when you are more up to speed?

 

[Jman8]

If a Company has done Nothing Wrong, and has Acted in Good Faith, why should they Fear a Lawsuit?

The "nothing wrong" assertion is equal to "completely harmless." Perhaps you are not familiar with our actual adversaries.

 

[Jman8]

ANTZ rhetoric is certainly fueling the fire. I don't believe there is any direct
backing coming from them. They certainly will profer all the moral support
they can muster and, exploit the situation to the fullest.
Regards
Mike

Do you think ANTZ had anything to do with original MSA? If yes, how would you back that up?

 

[zoiDman]

The "nothing wrong" assertion is equal to "completely harmless." Perhaps you are not familiar with our actual adversaries.

I don't think you have much Experience in Business. Or understand how Common Place Lawsuits are.

In a "Free Market", the Courts are the only Arbiters for those Seeking a Remedy. Are you saying that you would like to see the e-Cigarette/e-Liquid Market Regulated? Where someone like the FDA has Power over how Sellers conduct their Business?

Because that sounds like ANTZ Rhetoric to me.

 

[edyle]

Ok, based on your commentary, you must only be aware of the NJOY lawsuit for false advertising. Or perhaps it is the Vuse lawsuit for deceiving their customers. Or is it another one?

Perhaps we can discuss your strong disagreement when you are more up to speed?

Well since you mentioned it, I found your original post somewhat over generalised, and I assumed you were talking about lawsuits where people got injured from battery incident;

but lawsuits against njoy and vuse sound like an entirely different type of matter.

 

[Jman8]

I don't think you have much Experience in Business. Or understand how Common Place Lawsuits are.

In a "Free Market", the Courts are the Arbiters for those Seeking a Remedy. Are you saying that you would like to see the e-Cigarette/e-Liquid Market Regulated? Where someone like the FDA has Power over how Sellers conduct their Business?

Because that sounds like ANTZ Rhetoric to me.

Well regulations are common place too. Should we therefore not oppose them at all, because of how common they are? Or why would we?

No, I am not saying I'd like to see regulations. Another one of your fallacious loaded questions.

To me, in any of these lawsuits, if you can identify with plaintiffs, then chances are pretty good you are ANTZ friendly.

 

[zoiDman]

Ok, based on your commentary, you must only be aware of the NJOY lawsuit for false advertising. Or perhaps it is the Vuse lawsuit for deceiving their customers. Or is it another one?

Perhaps we can discuss your strong disagreement when you are more up to speed?

If NJOY engaged in False Advertising, why Shouldn't they be Sued? Do e-Cigarette companies receive a Pass just because they are an e-Cigarette Company?

And if NJOY didn't engage in False Advertising, then "ut dicetur".

 

[Jman8]

Well since you mentioned it, I found your original post somewhat over generalised, and I assumed you were talking about lawsuits where people got injured from battery incident;

but lawsuits against njoy and vuse sound like an entirely different type of matter.

I honestly wasn't considering the mech suits, but that would just add to the trend. I think they are possibly part of the orchestration, but feel they are a little less so. They strike me as slightly less frivolous.

 

[edyle]

I don't think you have much Experience in Business. Or understand how Common Place Lawsuits are.

In a "Free Market", the Courts are the only Arbiters for those Seeking a Remedy. Are you saying that you would like to see the e-Cigarette/e-Liquid Market Regulated? Where someone like the FDA has Power over how Sellers conduct their Business?

Because that sounds like ANTZ Rhetoric to me.

I was thinking along those same lines;
theres a better chance for justice in the courts that from a body like the fda that might be making up rules based on misinformation and swayed by prejudice;
it the courts, misinformation can be challenged and rebutted.

 

[NoFumus]

I am interested in the outcome of the lawsuit against VUSE, for failure to disclose the risk of inhaing the carcinogens formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

The press coverage on the formaldehyde scare received far more coverage than later attempts to debunk the bad science. If this goes to court, I see an opportunity for sound, scientific research to come to light.

 

[Jman8]

If NJOY engaged in False Advertising, why Shouldn't they be Sued? Do e-Cigarette companies receive a Pass just because they are an e-Cigarette Company?

And if NJOY didn't engage in False Advertising, then "ut dicetur".

Like saying, if vaping products are a tobacco product, then why shouldn't they be regulated under FSPTCA? Does vaping industry receive a Pass just because it's a new tobacco product?

IMO, you are missing the point if you do not understand what is occurring right now via these multiple lawsuits.

No wonder it was so easy to pass FSPTCA and position MSA as all about taking down BT. That worked out so well, now didn't it?

 

[zoiDman]

Well regulations are common place too. Should we therefore not oppose them at all, because of how common they are? Or why would we?

No, I am not saying I'd like to see regulations. Another one of your fallacious loaded questions.

To me, in any of these lawsuits, if you can identify with plaintiffs, then chances are pretty good you are ANTZ friendly.

I think you are Too Obsessed with ANTZ.

If there was No Wrong Doing, it will be Shown. And if there was Wrong Doing, then a Company Should be Held Accountable.

I'm beginning to think that your Idea of a "Free Market" is where Companies are "Free" to do whatever they like. And should Not have to Answer to Allegations of Wrong Doing.

 

[Jman8]

I am interested in the outcome of the lawsuit against VUSE, for failure to disclose the risk of inhaing the carcinogens formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

The press coverage on the formaldehyde scare received far more coverage than later attempts to debunk the bad science. If this goes to court, I see an opportunity for sound, scientific research to come to light.

I agree that the lawsuits will have that opportunity, which is why I can see no sound reason for pro-vaping enthusiast to side with plaintiffs. Like even a smidgeon.

But also don't see how any company (in any industry) can overcome Prop 65. IMO, the solution is to not sell (vaping) products in CA as long as that is in place. Sorry CA vapers, but that to me is reasonable.

 

[zoiDman]

...

IMO, you are missing the point if you do not understand what is occurring right now via these multiple lawsuits.

...

Then why don't you Explain what is Going On.

Because surely you are Not In Favor of denying an Individual the Fundamental Right to Seek a Remedy thru the Court System.

Or maybe you are?