Class Action Suit against SE:

[martha1014]

I don't think the FDA would be doing its job by taking ecigs off the market.The tobacco companies has had numberous lawsuits which caused lung cancer and death which they have had to pay. These people made a choice to smoke.

If I found a safer alternative to smoking analogs which had improved my health and by taking these off the market caused me to go back to smoking analogs which caused my symptoms to return and increased my lung damage and probable impending death.

Even if I made a choice to return to analogs I feel FDA would be liable for these damages just like the tobacco companies were liable for people getting lung cancer and death. The FDA now has control over tobacco and they shoud have provided better warning against analogs.

I could also assume these were not as dangerous as we once thought since Congress gave the FDA power over cigarettes.

 

[kristin]

Catwoman, the defendent does not have to prove his personal cartridges had these "carcinogens" in them....the FDA already provided the "proof" of a probable lack of quality control in their analysis. More importantly, the FDA report disproves the baseline stance of the health claims made by SE advertising/marketing campaigns. SE specifically stated and sold the products as free of cancer causing agents.

While NRT has the same carcinogens, those products do not state they contain no carcinogens.8-o

OK, here is my problem with it - yes, a cess & desist order is called for, but restitution and disgorgement??

NO ONE has been shown to have been harmed in any way by SE products. Just because they found certain elements doesn't mean anyone was or will be harmed at the levels that they were found. All of the items were the same as found in NRTs (with the exception of DEG and I can't find any reports on "safe" levels of DEG, other than some kids in Panama died after ingesting government-made cough syrups containing levels over 14% DEG.)

IMO, if the FDA can say NRTs are safe and they contain the very came tobacco-specific impurities, than SE wasn't out of line. From what I found online, the NRTs have a lot of these same containiments. Even if Pfizer doesn't advertise them the same way SE did their product, the fact that the inhaler is sanctioned by the FDA and doctors implies that they are "safe" in the same sense of the word. Funny that they name cotinine (a GRAS ingredient even in tobacco), anabasine (also no known harmful effects) & myosmine (also found in nuts, apples, wheat flour, potatyoes, milk, popcorn, tomato, carrots and pineapples). Regardless, even though they were found, the FDA never said they were above acceptable levels! It's true that SE shouldn't have claimed it has NONE of the chemicals found in cigarettes and stuck to what was actually obvious - tar, carbon monoxide, ammonia, etc.

And what is with all of the comments about child enticement in this suit?? That has nothing to do with false advertisement nor the plaintiff??

"The defendant has designed the product to appeal to children and adolecents, sells them in place where youth can easily access them and there is no legal age restriction limiting their sale to minors."

They've designed the product to appeal to SMOKERS. Most adults don't want to use something that looks stupid. Children can easily access them? Ummm...yeah, for $150! Sorry, the kids with that kind of money are going to buy their designer jeans and the latest Xbox game - not a stupid e-cig. And they make it seem like it's SE's fault that there is no legal restriction!

How does ANY of this relate to people who actually bought SE products and the suit in general??

I'm willing to bet that less than 3% of people who bought SE will want to be a part of this. Most of us who got dupped by kiosk & expo ecig prices still are grateful that they introduced us to e-cigs in the first place.