class action against the FDA and Health Canada
- Thread starter dk2
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If you can find an attorney that will actually take the case on a completely contingent basis(money paid is ONLY used for legitimate legal expenses) I'd pay $10. However, to pay an attorney $500+ an hour who knows the case is going to get thrown out almost immediately after it's filed, is wasteful and would not accomplish the goal you're seeking as the FDA would never have to respond.
If you can find an such an attorney, I'm in.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but markarich159 is right. The FDA enjoys sovereign immunity, and cannot be sued except in specific and extremely limited circumstances. Even where they can be sued, such as in the SE and njoy case, there is NO monetary relief available. So even if it were possible to find some avenue to sue, which I don't believe exists, there would never be any sort of contingent fee arrangement - those are offered only in cases where the attorney expects to be paid out of a big monetary damages reward.
The following is from Judge Leon's decision in the SE and njoy case - he did all my research for me.
"It is also worth noting that even if the claimed economic injury did not threaten plaintiffs' viability, it is still irreparable because plaintiffs cannot recover money damages against FDA.
*****************************************************
Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the federal government and its agencies, like FDA, from suit. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). The APA, of course, waives sovereign immunity for federal agencies but only in actions "seeking relief other than money damages." 5 U.S.C. § 702. Even though the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") waives immunity for damages in some instances, it does not do so here. Claims "based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government ... in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid," as well as claims arising out of "interference with contract rights," both of which would most likely apply in this case, are excluded from the FTCA's general waiver of sovereign immunity for torts. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), (h). There being no apparent avenue for obtaining damages against FDA, any economic loss suffered by plaintiffs due to the detention or refused admission of their products can never be recovered and is therefore irreparable."
http://www.casaa.org/files/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf
The following is from Judge Leon's decision in the SE and njoy case - he did all my research for me.
"It is also worth noting that even if the claimed economic injury did not threaten plaintiffs' viability, it is still irreparable because plaintiffs cannot recover money damages against FDA.
*****************************************************
Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the federal government and its agencies, like FDA, from suit. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). The APA, of course, waives sovereign immunity for federal agencies but only in actions "seeking relief other than money damages." 5 U.S.C. § 702. Even though the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") waives immunity for damages in some instances, it does not do so here. Claims "based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government ... in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid," as well as claims arising out of "interference with contract rights," both of which would most likely apply in this case, are excluded from the FTCA's general waiver of sovereign immunity for torts. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), (h). There being no apparent avenue for obtaining damages against FDA, any economic loss suffered by plaintiffs due to the detention or refused admission of their products can never be recovered and is therefore irreparable."
http://www.casaa.org/files/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf
Last edited:
I'm willing to try and set a new precedent, this would be special circumstances, I don't think there's been a situation in the past where FDA or health organization blatantly on such a large scale falsified information to mislead the public for their own monetary benefit. Again let's get the vapor's support and their pledges then we'll find a lawyer. If more people don't show interest in this thread and quickly we will not be able to pursue any type of action anyway.
Last edited:
I came to Canada 15 years ago from a eastern block comunist country.
Point is, we killed the comunism in "89 by take it on the streets and protest.
If we all get together on this issue, we can shake the stupid mentality of the goverment by all making a public complaint, and with some cash we will have a back up, to state our issue in the front of a judje.
I am in all the way, and lets do it!!!
Thank you!!
Point is, we killed the comunism in "89 by take it on the streets and protest.
If we all get together on this issue, we can shake the stupid mentality of the goverment by all making a public complaint, and with some cash we will have a back up, to state our issue in the front of a judje.
I am in all the way, and lets do it!!!
Thank you!!
I would chip in,
even though we would not be suing for financial gain, it would be worth it just to get a ruling against the FDA that they lied and misled the public. From what I remember Judge Leon said something along the lines of - (The FDA failed to prove in any capacity that there was a public health risk...) that in itself shows they were making unsubstantiated claims.
The thought of chasing them when there is no financial gain to be had would be a great slap in their face and probably create wonderful press for the e-cig and the e-cig community, but what would happen if we lost and had to pay their costs too... etc.
I dont think it will/could happen, but count me in if it does!
On the otherside... the FDA is there to protect the public from potential dangers as well as actual ones, How would you feel if in say 10 years people start suffering from things like popcorn lung or Mesothelioma-like diseases (from asbestos) sometimes it takes a long time for adverse effects to surface. (why didn't the FDA ban it?)
It wouldn't be to hard to convince someone that the E-cig is untested, and their actions to get it banned/restricted is in the best intrests of the public, untill proven safe. (following protocol)
Saying it forces people to go back to smoking is difficult to sell, because there are other options.... NRT, quit etc... if there are options it becomes a choice.
I know for me it isn't really a choice, but you really have to be a hardcore nic addict to understand that.
Cool thought though.
even though we would not be suing for financial gain, it would be worth it just to get a ruling against the FDA that they lied and misled the public. From what I remember Judge Leon said something along the lines of - (The FDA failed to prove in any capacity that there was a public health risk...) that in itself shows they were making unsubstantiated claims.
The thought of chasing them when there is no financial gain to be had would be a great slap in their face and probably create wonderful press for the e-cig and the e-cig community, but what would happen if we lost and had to pay their costs too... etc.
I dont think it will/could happen, but count me in if it does!
On the otherside... the FDA is there to protect the public from potential dangers as well as actual ones, How would you feel if in say 10 years people start suffering from things like popcorn lung or Mesothelioma-like diseases (from asbestos) sometimes it takes a long time for adverse effects to surface. (why didn't the FDA ban it?)
It wouldn't be to hard to convince someone that the E-cig is untested, and their actions to get it banned/restricted is in the best intrests of the public, untill proven safe. (following protocol)
Saying it forces people to go back to smoking is difficult to sell, because there are other options.... NRT, quit etc... if there are options it becomes a choice.
I know for me it isn't really a choice, but you really have to be a hardcore nic addict to understand that.
Cool thought though.
It's ridiculous that the FDA does not classify e-cigs as a smoking alternative. Nic gum and patches are a joke. 
I will check up on this thread and contribute if it turns out possible.
I will check up on this thread and contribute if it turns out possible.
even if the suit were only about showing up the inconsistencies of the FDA. Centrex (sp?) and other drugs get a fast track and BIG side effects (like suicide) are ignored and the PV is labled a demon killing machine.
Well seeing as Dr Murray Laugesen, a Kiwi, has done research to suggest that e-cigarettes ARE safer than analogues, it would be wrong for me to say that I'm not in!
You've definitely got $10 for me. Just say when.
You've definitely got $10 for me. Just say when.
I'm in...How can the government restrict any of the components anyway...I mean come on...batteries...filaments...carts...mouthpieces...there is nothing illegal about any of that stuff. The only thing they might be able to apply controls on is the e juice which contains nicotine because nicotine is a drug. Big deal, we can all make our own if they want to play that game. Or, they can do what they do best sell it in stores and tax the hell out of it.
I am so in on this, I would truly like to see this happen. I mean it's only fair right? If someone throws stones at you what would you do?
I'd gladly pledge $10 (if not more) to the cause.
Although monetary damages may not be possible, an injunction or other action against them for interfering may be. Perhaps even a class action suit to include anyone's shipment, and against the FDA and anyone else involved in seizures (including customs officials).
Although monetary damages may not be possible, an injunction or other action against them for interfering may be. Perhaps even a class action suit to include anyone's shipment, and against the FDA and anyone else involved in seizures (including customs officials).
- Status
Similar threads
