- Status
It depends on what set of tests you are referring too,when they were done and,who did the testing and
what specific testing method was used. Testing by 5P showed widely varying results. The independent
testing I believe showed higher amount than 5P's testing showed. The discrepancies between the tests
may preclude them as being used as evidence unless they are planning on bringing the labs in to testify.
Some one at 5P may have had test results at some point in time. So what? It needs to be determined
when all of the staff was informed of the issue and procedures were put into place to deal with it.
Its not what someone at 5P may have known. Its what whom ever spoke believed at the time.
Its interesting to note that vapersmurfs marketing campaign with its surrounding pod cast
5P bashing occurred just before 5P introduced its new line of juices. The way this whole thing
is playing out reeks of fish.
Regards
Mike
I'm currently wondering if you have read the lawsuit. I have.
I feel like I've been directing Mazinny because what he is saying is not all that the suit is about.
Now it is clear to me that you likely have not read the lawsuit.
Repeatedly, the lawsuit says (and I quote):
If you think I'm mistaken about this, I will quote it again from another page, with very slight change in substance, and to in fact demonstrate the reach of the suit:
And if for some reason, you think I can only find this type of assertion a couple times in the document, I will show you otherwise.
I have already showed that the lawsuit against NJOY, by the SAME LAW FIRM, contains same type of language. This notion being that had the eCig company disclosed the 'fact' that the product contains 'harmful ingredients,' then the Plaintiffs would not have purchased their product.
One of the ways they base the deception of 5P, but surely not the only way, is by stating:
So, I do think it is possible to read this document as only about 5P. Just as it is possible to read FDA deeming as only about a few, very small number of companies that might be impacted by federal regulations for not living up to 'simple, quality standards.' I think it is incredibly unlikely that this stops with 5P based on what this lawsuit is saying, how it is choosing to say it, and what is the recent history by this law firm with going after other eCig vendors.
If you side with this law firm and what they are up to, without qualifying that in a whole bunch of ways, then I find it impossible to believe you/anyone that does, is actually pro-vaping. There is no much anti-vaping rhetoric in the lawsuit, to help bolster its case, that not noting this tells me that the people who are "happy with this suit" and/or think "5P deserves this" are people that have very likely not read the suit, and/or are plausibly anti-vaping to some degree, and not simply anti-5P.
You may be right. I am looking at the way this whole thing came about.
It started on the forums. Then the vapersmurf marketing campaign.
Now a law suite. If I were a tinfoil hat type of guy I would get the impression
someone was out to get 5P. Why 5P? I'm thinking is because their in California.
I believe the plaintiffs are from there. Could be wrong.
If you ask me they are thinking to small. They should take all the hundreds
if not thousands of vendors who have not addressed or even mentioned
the DA/AP issue on their sites to court. They all are guilty by omission
of being deceitful and, therefore lying. They all should know,shouldn't they?
Regards
Mike
@Jman8
"Defendant does not warn its customers about the dangers of inhaling DA and AP, neither on its product packaging nor on its website.
If you think I'm mistaken about this, I will quote it again from another page, with very slight change in substance, and to in fact demonstrate the reach of the suit:
As a result of Defendant’s deceptive, false and misleading claims in its advertising, consumers – including Plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed classes – have purchased Defendant’s e-liquids without being advised that they contain a variety of toxins, impurities, and related potential health hazards as found by various studies discussed in more detail below. Had Defendant disclosed these material facts, Plaintiffs would not have purchased Defendant’s e- liquids. Defendant was able to charge more than what its e-liquids would have been worth had it disclosed the truth about them."
Jman, from what they said above do they have actual proof that diketones are causing harm
to vapers because its in the juice.
My second question is how can they prove they were able to charge more than its worth but
for the fact they didn't disclose the information in question. Correct me if I am wrong but,
aren't the vendors that have reformulated there products as being diketone free charging
a premium for taking out the so called bad stuff? Less stuff = more money?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
regards
mike
"Defendant does not warn its customers about the dangers of inhaling DA and AP, neither on its product packaging nor on its website.
If you think I'm mistaken about this, I will quote it again from another page, with very slight change in substance, and to in fact demonstrate the reach of the suit:
As a result of Defendant’s deceptive, false and misleading claims in its advertising, consumers – including Plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed classes – have purchased Defendant’s e-liquids without being advised that they contain a variety of toxins, impurities, and related potential health hazards as found by various studies discussed in more detail below. Had Defendant disclosed these material facts, Plaintiffs would not have purchased Defendant’s e- liquids. Defendant was able to charge more than what its e-liquids would have been worth had it disclosed the truth about them."
Jman, from what they said above do they have actual proof that diketones are causing harm
to vapers because its in the juice.
My second question is how can they prove they were able to charge more than its worth but
for the fact they didn't disclose the information in question. Correct me if I am wrong but,
aren't the vendors that have reformulated there products as being diketone free charging
a premium for taking out the so called bad stuff? Less stuff = more money?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
regards
mike
How could it be about the harm of DAP, when there is no evidence of that in the vaping community?
Lawsuit is about lying. I find it easy to dispute the claims in the suit, and is why I hope they lose, and lose bad.
But also see the case being established for lying as not something that is unique to 5P. Now, had I not found other lawsuits by this company that demonstrate this isn't the first time they've gone after eCig companies, then perhaps it would be a stretch to suggest they (or other ANTZ-friendly legal teams) could go after other vaping companies on similar grounds. But as I have found that they are going after NJOY with entirely similar wording, and are same firm that won monumental smoking case, based on notion that plaintiffs had no knowledge that smoking was possibly harmful (circa 1990), then IMO, one has to bury their head in the sand about what this suit is actually likely to open up if it were to succeed.
It would not matter if PG, VG, nic or flavors are harmful. And would matter if they have ANY risks (at all) and ANY vendor does not currently or has not in their history conveyed information directly to ALL consumers stating all the risks associated with those ingredients. A representative for any company could say to me, "oh no. PG is perfectly safe to inhale and we use top grade." And that can be shown to be deceptive marketing that would (arguably, or feebly shown) to have impacted my buying decision because I later learned that PG has risks, but this company led me to believe by using THEIR PARTICULAR PRODUCT that I would not encounter those risks.
No. They cite the work exposure cases and then stick to the point (firmly) that this establishes that inhalation of these compounds do in fact cause harm, to anyone that inhales them.
This is based on idea that had consumer been fully notified (not just of presence, but of risks), then consumer arguably would've expected to not buy the product (paying $0) or would've concluded this is not 'premium' product, but is instead 'dangerous product' and had consumer been willing to accept the risks (once fully explained to them what all the potential risks are), that they would've reasonably concluded this is worth far less than a market where premium products (that don't have any risks) reside. So, instead of $27.50 for bottle of 5P liquid, it would perhaps be 'reasonable' to conclude it is at most $10. Dollar figures / exact amount, don't really matter to the point, and is just another way of saying, 'risks were not fully established / disclosed, nor conveyed to consumer, and therefore the alleged value (from company) is another example of deception.'
Any chance you have a link to the doc? I've heard a lot of things about what is supposedly in it - not saying you are not telling the truth, thats not what I mean - but I haven't actually read the doc
Where are all those studies using diketones
in juice that are showing harm?
Regards
Mike
Mike, that is beside the point, and if you read the lawsuit it is only about false advertising/deceptive marketing practices and there is no claim by any of the plaintiffs for damages caused by DAP. Showing harm is not even a part of this lawsuit. Only as an aside, that consumers wishing to avoid injestion of certain chemicals have an expectation when they are told that said product does not contain those chemicals. It is only about false advertising, period.
As I pointed out, one of the plaintiffs is a PINAC correspondent, I suspect he knows the Constitution and other laws like the back of his hand, as a matter of fact he has gone up against the Dept of Homeland Security and the FBI in the past.
My thought is that a message is being sent. I personally can't support deceptive marketing practices and if 5P ends up being found in violation of doing that, I will say it is a win for consumers.
I know some of you will tie this into vaping but it really isn't about that. If this was a pharma drug, or any other product, which was deceptively advertised and marketed, I would be against that, too.
Industries that sell products, esp. products that are injested, cannot run roughshod over consumers and that is the point of the lawsuit. It was only a matter of time before this happened.
As for being an ANTZ....hardly. This particular plaintiff has exercised his "right to vape" in ways that few here would dare
.......and was willing to go to jail, be arrested, etc. to protect that right. That is why I linked to his video and interview with VP Live I posted in the other topic. So no, I do not think there was a set up beforehand. Watchdog citizen types who decided that as consumers and citizens, that people do have rights.
I am not sticking up for either side because the facts will be determined by the courts and I do not know what those facts are and don't care to speculate if 5P is guilty of any wrong doing or not. Your speculation or my speculation or anyone else's speculation at the moment has no basis in fact. Five Pawns will have their day in court.
Sorry, I do not. After reading your question, I went digging for it, but it appears it has been removed (from TVECA) site. I'm thinking feds came down hard on them leaking it and they chose to ditch it.
Dang...yeah I tried looking for it on Friday, I think, but seems like it has been taken down all over the place
- thanks anywaysNot accurate.
I strongly believe, given a little dialogue, I could (easily) show that you support certain marketing practices that are, by this lawsuits standards, deceptive. Perhaps 'support' is too strong, but do believe in course of dialogue, you'd say something along lines of, "oh that's not a big deal. Not really lying."
Here again I will quote from lawsuit to help establish what I am stating the lawsuit is actually about, and will eagerly await your quotes that show it is only about false advertising. Under "Factual Allegations" of the suit:
While not 100% certain, I am fairly sure these same data points are brought up in the NJOY lawsuit (again by same law firm).
You keep changing what is the point of the lawsuit. I'll say it is only a matter of time before this lawsuit applies to other (successful) eLiquid vendors who engaged in deceptive practices, by standards of this suit.
As for being an ANTZ....hardly. This particular plaintiff has exercised his "right to vape" in ways that few here would dare
Not saying the plaintiffs are ANTZ, but am saying plaintiffs are in bed with a law firm that is ANTZ-friendly. Not sure how one would dispute this, but perhaps one could show all the cases where law firm has defended eCig or tobacco companies.
This seems plausible but,how are they going to get around the fact they can't trot out
sick vapers. The second part I am having a hard time parsing. If I follow it correctly
they are saying the addition of diketones made 5P dangerous and therefore not worth
the cost they were charging. additionally if they removed the diketones they would
indeed be worth the cost of the juice thats "risk free?".
They are going to prove vaping is safe? We win,right?
Hey everyone vaping is safe. Sorry 5P under the bus you go!
Regards
Mike
I think they are going to rely on innuendo (it could cause harm someday, therefore all looking at our case should be concerned).
But legally, I think they will rely on 'damages' equal monetary losses by plaintiffs, and stress from not being told that the products had risks when they in fact did. Or like how all products have risks.
The second part I am having a hard time parsing. If I follow it correctly
they are saying the addition of diketones made 5P dangerous and therefore not worth
the cost they were charging. additionally if they removed the diketones they would
indeed be worth the cost of the juice thats "risk free?".
They are going to prove vaping is safe? We win,right?
Hey everyone vaping is safe. Sorry 5P under the bus you go!
Regards
Mike
That is humorous.
No, they are capitalizing on idea that this ingredient (and many others in eLiquid) all have risks. And unless all those risks are noted, and then explained to consumers, that the company (or defendant) is being deceptive (lie by omission). Again, if I call up say any sponsor of the VP Live programs, and ask about say PG, and they say only things along lines of "PG is safe to inhale" and "our PG is top grade" then by the standards of this suit, they are (likely) being deceptive. For if I were to learn at any point that PG has risks, and they did not tell me about those at the point of sale, and instead tried to persuade me to believe I would not be running into any risks from inhaling PG, then they lied to me. If I were to also later find information that suggests the company knew PG does in fact have risks, then they clearly lied to me at point of sale by only providing one side of the story (that you'll be fine, this is safe, we use quality ingredients).
This seems plausible but,how are they going to get around the fact they can't trot out
sick vapers. The second part I am having a hard time parsing. If I follow it correctly
they are saying the addition of diketones made 5P dangerous and therefore not worth
the cost they were charging. additionally if they removed the diketones they would
indeed be worth the cost of the juice thats "risk free?".
They are going to prove vaping is safe? We win,right?
Hey everyone vaping is safe. Sorry 5P under the bus you go!
Regards
Mike
I must admit, the last part of your post made me chuckle. If that turns out to be the case..... In baseball terms, that would be a sacrifice fly.
We can fantasize, right?
I disagree, harm is the core issue. Should a vendor (of any type) be required to disclose their intellectual property based solely on a customers "claim" of harm? Shouldn't that harm be proven first?
For you personally perhaps.
However, that is not what the lawsuit is about.
The purpose of the suit is clearly stated:
"The lawsuit seeks to stop Five Pawns from marketing and selling its products without proper disclosure."
The only damages being sought in the lawsuit pertain to disclosure. That is the reason for the lawsuit, plain and simple.
Lawsuits are always about something, this one is about deceptive marketing practices, period. This is the sole basis on which damages are being sought.
All lawsuits contain "story line", i.e. why plaintiffs are asking for what they are asking for (in this case, simply *disclosure*) and that is well and clearly stated in the suit itself.
The story line is not the lawsuit. It simply explains the circumstances surrounding the reason for the suit. The stated purpose of the lawsuit, and on what basis damages are being sought, is. In this case, disclosure.
There are, of course, reasons why plaintiffs are asking for disclosure and that would be their belief that DAP is an inhalation risk. So they are asking for it to be disclosed. Nothing more.
I don't see this being the Core Issue at all.
I see the Core Issue is what Happens if a Seller of a Consumable Product Misrepresents what the is in the Product.
If I market a Product that is 100% Organic, or Gluten Free, or No Trans-Fat, or whatever, and I Intentionally Mislead Buyers, shouldn't someone be Able to Sue Me?
For you personally perhaps.
However, that is not what the lawsuit is about.
The purpose of the suit is clearly stated:
"The lawsuit seeks to stop Five Pawns from marketing and selling its products without proper disclosure."
The only damages being sought in the lawsuit pertain to disclosure. That is the reason for the lawsuit, plain and simple.
Lawsuits are always about something, this one is about deceptive marketing practices, period. This is the sole basis on which damages are being sought.
All lawsuits contain "story line", i.e. why plaintiffs are asking for what they are asking for (in this case, simply *disclosure*) and that is well and clearly stated in the suit itself.
The story line is not the lawsuit. The stated purpose of the lawsuit, and on what basis damages are being sought, is.
I agree , this is about "Five Pawns" claims of being diacetyl free and then the plaintiffs finding out thats not the case . As far as health issues that won't be able to be proved for many years to come , no way they are winning that argument.
@AZ Plumber: ^^^^ disclosure has NOTHING to do with risk. Millions of people use shampoo with sodium laurel sulfate.
Many consumers do not like what that does to their hair, and want to know if it is in their shampoo.
Disclosure and harm are often completely separate issues.
this is why it will be unnecessary to "trot out sick vapers". It is not at all pertinent to the case.
Many consumers do not like what that does to their hair, and want to know if it is in their shampoo.
Disclosure and harm are often completely separate issues.
this is why it will be unnecessary to "trot out sick vapers". It is not at all pertinent to the case.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
