- Status
Why do you think one vendor represents an entire community. There are shady vendors in every industry. I don't think there are too many vendors that have expressly told customers their products are da/ap free when results of their own internal testing stated otherwise ... At least i hope there aren't.
Agree with this. I see 5P getting nailed on the lie. But not on knowingly lying. Perhaps a fine line, but in essence the same for plaintiffs.
If CSR was telling people that it is DA/P free, but that can't be shown to be instruction provided by anyone above that rep, then it'll just be shown to be a lie that was told, that came from member of the company, but details would show that it wasn't knowingly told by executives of the company. I do think it possible that it is shown it goes higher than lowly CSR, but doubt it is something that can be shown that all people in company knew about.
We shall see. I think many vape companies are in similar boat. 5P is just the beginning if plaintiffs can make the lie assertion stick to 5P.
Makes me wonder if I worked for a company and made assertions to customers that guarantee more sales for me, more revenue for company, more opportunity for me to advance. But then supervisors find out what I'm up to, fire me, and a suit is brought against the company. Is the company now liable for all that I conveyed to customers? This case is suggesting that yes, anything I said to customers is liability of entire company.
Therefore, for plaintiffs case to be stronger, for what they are really after, the marketing materials need to be presented that show company was advertising in this manner.
My point is we have enough negative publicity out there. Our elected officials look for stuff like this to use. It makes a good point for them to push for hard regulations or even an all out ban.
It's not good for vapers at all. Just wait.
Russ also Called Customer Service and recorded it. He was told, as I recall, that the 2 e-liquids he asked about were AP Free. And this was done by a "Supervisor".
He then Played the Conversation on "Click Bang".
Five Pawns has also Acknowledged that "some" people were Told that Five Pawns Customer Service operators have told people that Five Pawns e-Liquids were AP Free. The Exact Amount of people given this Information was Never Disclosed that I know of.
That's why we have discovery and cross-examination etc... It doesn't necessarily have to be in the marketing material, nor does it need to be shown that everyone in the company knew. If it were to be shown for example that more than one b&m was told that their liquids were da/ap free by more than one salesman or executive from the company, it would add to the body of evidence that this was a company policy.
Last edited:
In my estimation, there are probably 30% of vendors that advertised as DA/P free. I doubt that many do now, unless they have done the testing. And even if they do, I do think they run up against a situation where they will be prevented from saying that post FDA deeming.
I'm aware of, by name, at least one vendor that advertised in this way, and seem to recall coming across about a half dozen.
I think the situation was essentially being told by flavor manufacturers (that do test their stuff) that it is not in there. So, that was the basis of those claims. Treated as a great thing (PC-wise) during the initial round of addressing this issue, circa 2010 to 2013. Also helped by claim of "we do not add DA to our products." Meaning, they don't add flavors that have it in there, and are therefore, in their understanding free of it. But if not tested, and if flavoring manufacturer was wrong (not lying, just wrong), then it does make it appear like vendor was lying.
IMO, this is very accurate assessment of almost all vendors that made this claim / told the 'lie.'
Being PC does have its cost. That is about to be made clear in the lawsuit being brought.
If FDA were to prevent the claims from being made, then it would show even more that it was utterly foolish to make that claim at any point prior to FDA involvement.
As far as i know they didn't have internal test results when they told people their liquid is da/ap free, so they could conceivably claim that they made the declaration based on the representation from their flavor providers. I mean i think it's more than likely that they knew but it can't be proven.
Also 5P has apparently stated that all their " extractions and infusions " are produced in house so theoretically there shouldn't be diketones ( besides possibly trace amounts naturally occurring ) unless they added it. Also possible they lied about that as well, i don't know.
That was actually a direct quote from their June 29, 2015 "Five Pawns - Be Informed" article on their website from the link I provided beore.
If that wasn't a delivery then I don't know what you more you want.
like you said there are lies and then there are " knowing lies " . Relying on flavor providers to make a false claim is different imo than making a false claim when your own internal tests proved the falsity of the claim. Whether the distinction matters as a matter of law i don't know, but i suspect that it does.
It is stating they (later) moved in that direction, only to realize DA/P occurs naturally (thus not added by them knowingly). It is also after the fact of what plaintiffs are bringing to the table and what all others that have discussed with regards to 5P. If anything, it bolsters the claims that support 5P take on the situation.
What I'm asking you to provide is a screenshot of their website marketing pages, or an ad in say print form, or a label on a product that reads, "our products (or this product) is diacetyl-free."
If that type of claim can be found, the plaintiffs have a stronger case. Without it, then executives of the company have plausible deniability of now knowing that lie is being conveyed to customers.
I already raised how this is an interesting predicament, and am going to add that I think it could easily be exploited as a scam. I go work for a company, I tell lies (knowingly) that sell more product, make me look good, and unless I'm constantly monitored, I get away with it indefinitely. Then customers start to call out the claims being made, and it gets sourced back to me. I get fired. Lawsuit is waged against the company for lying. Jury awards plaintiffs millions of dollars for the lie that was told (to them, by me). I then split the millions of dollars with the plaintiffs because in reality, this was our scheme from the beginning.
Not saying this is what 5P did, but does make me wonder if that could be done. Seems this case is suggesting, why yes, yes it could.
I don't know, you may be right and other vendors might become targets if 5P loses, but i suspect the point would be moot as we will likely be under the FDA regs by then.
I actually see it as a great way to whittle the industry down to a few players. Lawsuits clearly happen under FDA controlled markets. So, if this lawsuit works for plaintiffs, it would open door to other lawsuits. Especially if it can be found that they advertised as DA free, and it can be shown they have juice that is not or was not. Trace amounts would equal not DA free. Therefore, lie told. And if you awarded money in 5P case, you need to be consistent and award in all other cases where the lie was told.
So again, how would it not benefit any/all plaintiffs to go after all eLiquid companies on this issue, if plaintiffs are successful. Win some, lose some and decimate funds in the industry along the way. After all, they are making 'lots and lots' of money. What's a few million or even hundred million to a billion dollar industry? Shouldn't we right past wrongs?
That's neither a lie nor advertising.
If I remember correctly the ones that started this witch hunt had no intent of buying anything from
5P. There sole intent was to start another witch hunt Evidently they succeeded.
Regards
Mike
What a bunch of Bill Clinton double speak jibberish. They all knew and they all lied and continue to do so. Who are you trying to kid?
I see it differently. It could be used to show that we don't need more regulation, because there are already civil remedies available to curb the actions of "shady" companies.
- Status
Similar threads
