Diacetyl Free - Does it Matter?

[zoiDman]

And what did they say about this particular suit?

That it is a Easily Winnable suit for Deceptive and False Marketing/Advertising. And that five pawns Own (Dated) Lab Reports would be very Damning.

Both said that Based on the Complaint, and what they Knew of the Amount of Documented Information, they would have Advised five pawns to Reach a OOC Settlement.

They Both did say thought that the Pro 65 portion had some "Wiggle Room". But Both laughed that a Company the Size of five pawns would act like "Rookies" by Not having a Prop 65 Warning on their Packaging. Especially seeing that they Are CA Based.

 

[Jman8]

I say you have to protect yourself. And that is why I am in favor of DISCLOSURE.

This would be insane path to take in light of the suit. Disclosure doesn't mean what you are saying it means in this thread.

I agree that theoretically it could mean that if one asks "does your product contain (whatever)?" You could respond with "yes" or "no." And that would be disclosure. But if you agree that oversight was the issue here, then your "no" answer could be honest, while being inaccurate, therefore a suit like this results, and disclosure hurt you. In no way would it help you if you answer the question and it is later determined your answer was wrong (even at levels of trace amounts).

Not banning, not taking off the market, not regulating. Just simple disclosure regarding the ingredients you KNOW ABOUT. You know something has been added to an eliquid, then state it. You know your elqiuids tested positive for AP and DA, don't tell your customers who inquire about these specific chemicals that it's not there.

If anyone thinks that is too much to ask, to honestly answer a direct question about something that you already know is in your product, then we agree to disagree.

What if you and I know our company's eLiquids contain it, and for whatever reason one of our employees chooses to respond with "absolutely not?" Then what? Have you and I lied about what we know? This is yet another thing for the courts to sort out, but in the meantime on a discussion forum when we say "they knew" we aren't clear usually on who "they" are.

Were it my company, I'd refuse disclosure and if it meant I lost business, so be it. We can all speculate on which type of companies would do well and which wouldn't under that type of scenario, but I observe an eCig industry that went from 0 to 3.5 billion in half a decade and did very well under scenario closer to what I am suggesting is sanity and is now in jeopardy under the other path.

Now that disclosure, FDA-style, is on the table, my side of the equation will have endless opportunities to poke holes in how well that is working out for consumers. I look forward to doing so.

 

[Jman8]

That it is a Easily Winnable suit for Deceptive and False Marketing/Advertising. And that Five Pawns Own (Dated) Lab Reports would be very Damning.

Both said that Based on the Complaint, and what they Knew of the Amount of Documented Information, they would have Advised Five Pawns to Reach a OOC Settlement.

They Both did say thought that the Pro 65 portion had some "Wiggle Room". But Both laughed that a Company the Size of Five Pawns would act like "Rookies" by Not having a Prop 65 Warning on their Packaging. Especially seeing that they Are CA Based.

I hope for the sake of vaping and consumers who enjoy pre-FDA market, that your lawyers are wrong.

Why not ask them about the NJOY case as well? And whether they think it impacts their judgment on 5P case that same tactics/language is being employed?

 

[Moonbogg]

Same 3 or 4 people in all these D/AP threads. No one else cares.

 

[zoiDman]

I hope for the sake of vaping and consumers who enjoy pre-FDA market, that your lawyers are wrong.

Why not ask them about the NJOY case as well? And whether they think it impacts their judgment on 5P case that same tactics/language is being employed?

Doesn't Really Matter if My Lawyers are Right or Wrong. Or if this Case get Tossed Out or if Five Pawns gets their .... Nailed to the Wall.

Because there Will Be a FDA Regulated Market. And this Case Isn't going to Promote or to Prevent it. That Ball started Rolling Down the Hill in about 2010.

Another thing that is Kinda Laughable about all this is that if Five Pawns decides to Not Reach an OOC Settlement, and if this Suit does go All the Way down the Path to Judgment, it will Almost Assuredly be decided Long After Deeming is Complete.

 

[crxess]

Well that is why people bring lawsuits, to determine these things. I did not bring a lawsuit. So I guess we will never know for sure what went on behind the scenes.

But yes, I chose to believe it was, as you note "an unfortunate oversight". Mostly because I felt, in my heart, that the person who mixed it really just did not know what they were doing. (no, really???)

(If it had resulted in permanent lung destruction, it would move from "unfortunate oversight" to "negligent tragedy" though, right? I guess depending on whether it is yourself or a loved one how seriously one regards such things. )

My point about it has always been more that vapers have this unrealistic idea that everyone making ejuice knows what the heck they are doing, simply because they are in business.

I say you have to protect yourself. And that is why I am in favor of DISCLOSURE.

Not banning, not taking off the market, not regulating. Just simple disclosure regarding the ingredients you KNOW ABOUT. You know something has been added to an eliquid, then state it. You know your elqiuids tested positive for AP and DA, don't tell your customers who inquire about these specific chemicals that it's not there.

If anyone thinks that is too much to ask, to honestly answer a direct question about something that you already know is in your product, then we agree to disagree.

Thank you

 

[Racehorse]

I think most understand the core issue of the lawsuit, but ignore it to continue arguing the DA/AP issue instead.

Some posters have a reputation for "shifting topics" so as to muddy the real issues.

Re-reading many earlier topics about DA and AP most went on record that people should be able to vape what they wish, and that consumers could just ask for disclosure in order to make "educated buying decisions" and that was what the free market was all about.

Now, it appears that disclosure is off the table for some as well.

Perhaps the purpose of shifting the topic to the dangers of AP and DA is the fact that very few vapers are going to argue against simple disclosure. So not making that the primary discussion, which is what this lawsuit is about, is their way of taking eyes off the issue at hand. And the ONLY issue about which this lawsuit addresses in terms of damages.

Oh i see now. It wasn't the plaintiffs intent to use the e-juice in question.
There purpose was to gather evidence. I am sure there is some legal
mumbo jumbo to explain this legal concept to me. The way i see it is
they had no intent to actually use the product, therefore there are no
monetary damages except maybe the possibility of reimbursement.
This even seems to be a stretch as there was no intent to use the
juice. Whats that legal term I'm trying to remember? Collusion?
Nah.
Regards
Mike

So you are going on record to say the pre-purchase inquiries by consumers about a product is a form of evidence gathering?

(normally people would just call it consumer education).

And that also, in the event I make a inquiry which leads me to purchasing a product, and later find out that the product is materially different than what I was told, i.e. I was lied to, that it is collusion for me to seek remedy?

dear, dear. Have you ever been anywhere like Haiti? I think you would like it.

 

[zoiDman]

Same 3 or 4 people in all these D/AP threads. No one else cares.

I think Many People Care about Diketones. And Most have Very Strong Feelings about being Lied to when it comes to something they put Directly in their Lungs.

But I think Most are Not Willing (or just have Common Sense) to enter into Threads like this when they are Not Discussion about Topics. But are more "Debates" to be Won by One side or the Other.

 

[DC2]

Unsubscribing.

 

[Jman8]

Doesn't Really Matter if My Lawyers are Right or Wrong. Or if this Case get Tossed Out or if Five Pawns gets their .... Nailed to the Wall.

Because there Will Be a FDA Regulated Market. And this Case Isn't going to Promote or to Prevent it. That Ball started Rolling Down the Hill in about 2010.

Another thing that is Kinda Laughable about all this is that if Five Pawns decides to Not Reach an OOC Settlement, and if this Suit does go All the Way down the Path to Judgment, it will Almost Assuredly be decided Long After Deeming is Complete.

Well that's good news. Right?

I mean, for the pro-mandatory disclosure crowd?

 

[crxess]

God Bless DIY

World is going to hell-in-a-hand-basket.

The very things we want - Honesty and Disclosure - are the very things that will Rip this industry apart..................Not from the inside, but from the Get Rich outsiders.

 

[Jman8]

Some posters have a reputation for "shifting topics" so as to muddy the real issues.

Who has shifted topic? Can you cite these posts? If not up for discussing ideas, and up for calling out fellow posters, perhaps you will?

Re-reading many earlier topics about DA and AP most went on record that people should be able to vape what they wish, and that consumers could just ask for disclosure in order to make "educated buying decisions" and that was what the free market was all about.

Now, it appears that disclosure is off the table for some as well.

For DA/P it ought to be. If you want to stay in business and don't want your honest answers used against you, if they are later determined to be allegedly mistaken. Doesn't matter if they actually are, just allegedly. Let the courts sort out if they actually are, and if it bankrupts you in the process, oh well, sucks to be you.

 

[Racehorse]

If for sure doesn't explain why 3 people who bought the product, would seek 5 million dollars in damages.

This post continues to advertise your lack of knowledge about class action lawsuits, how the damages / financials are calculated, which are vastly different from personal lawsuits, where only person is compensated and number of attorneys and parties to the lawsuit are far more limited.

there is a reason the court made a determination that this action would be allowed to proceed as a class suit.

I also expect that there will be others joining the "class".

Quit while you're ahead. Really.

 

[zoiDman]

Well that's good news. Right?

I mean, for the pro-mandatory disclosure crowd?

Don't Know?

I'm in the Voluntary Disclosure, Vote with your Wallet, and be willing to be Sued if you Lie to Me about Ingredients, Crowd.

 

[skoony]

I don't have to Prove that Da or AP have Harmed me. I only need to State that I would NOT Have purchased a Five Pawns e-Liquid if I had Known that it Did contain Da and or AP.

Well then they have no case. Are they claiming that prior to them approaching 5P they were not aware
that diketones were used in most juice that needed a buttery flavor? It was well know due to the good DR.s
testing that many juices contained diketones even if the manufacturers said there wasn't any. With this
prior knowledge and realizing as many have said that many vendors are unknowingly using it because
it wasn't really a big issue until at most two years ago they should have expected there was more
a likelihood there were diketones than not. It is reasonable to assume the plaintiffs should have known
this. That's why they started the witch hunt in the forums in the first place. They claim to have known
before hand that they believed diketones were harmful. Can they claim they new nothing about the
fact that in that time frame most if not all the buttery flavors contained one or the other?

So you are going on record to say the pre-purchase inquiries by consumers about a product is a form of evidence gathering?

No but, the purchase of the product when it was reasonable to assume it probably was in there
isn't kosher. See my reply to Zoid.
Regards
Mike

 

[zoiDman]

Well then they have no case. Are they claiming that prior to them approaching 5P they were not aware
that diketones were used in most juice that needed a buttery flavor? It was well know due to the good DR.s
testing that many juices contained diketones even if the manufacturers said there wasn't any. With this
prior knowledge and realizing as many have said that many vendors are unknowingly using it because
it wasn't really a big issue until at most two years ago they should have expected there was more
a likelihood there were diketones than not. It is reasonable to assume the plaintiffs should have known
this. That's why they started the witch hunt in the forums in the first place. They claim to have known
before hand that they believed diketones were harmful. Can they claim they new nothing about the
fact that in that time frame most if not all the buttery flavors contained one or the other?


No but, the purchase of the product when it was reasonable to assume it probably was in there
isn't kosher. See my reply to Zoid.
Regards
Mike

It's a Very Simple Concept. One that has Been Explained to you Several Ways.

Say I am a Buyer of an e-Liquid.
But I will Only Buy e-Liquids which are Da or AP Free. (It Doesn't matter why this is. It just is.)
You say your e-Liquids are Da and AP Free.
So I buy it. Because they are Da and AP Free.
But then I find out that you have been Lying. Your e-Liquids have Da and (lots) AP.
I then Sue you for False Advertising/Marketing/Deceptive Sale Practices.
And the Damages are Monetary.

You can Spin Things anyway you want. Or make up Possible Scenarios. Some possibly Realistic. Some straight from Bazaro Land. But the Laws governing how Products are Marketed/Advertised/Sold are Nothing New.

And what you Lie about when you sold me that e-liquid Doesn't have to Physical Hurt me. Or even have the Pontital to Hurt me. It is the Deceptive Practice that you are being Sued for.

 

[skoony]

This post continues to advertise your lack of knowledge about class action lawsuits, how the damages / financials are calculated, which are vastly different from personal lawsuits, where only person is compensated and number of attorneys and parties to the lawsuit are far more limited.

there is a reason the court made a determination that this action would be allowed to proceed as a class suit.

I also expect that there will be others joining the "class".

Quit while you're ahead. Really.

The court have already approved class action status?
That was quick.
Mike

 

[skoony]

It's a Very Simple Concept. One that has Been Explained to you Several Ways.

Say I am a Buyer of an e-Liquid.
But I will Only Buy e-Liquids which are Da or AP Free. (It Doesn't matter why this is. It just is.)
You say your e-Liquids are Da and AP Free.
So I buy it. Because they are Da and AP Free.
But then I find out that you have been Lying. Your e-Liquids have Da and (lots) AP.
I then Sue you for False Advertising/Marketing/Deceptive Sale Practices.
And the Damages are Monetary.

You can Spin Things anyway you want. Or make up Possible Scenarios. Some possibly Realistic. Some straight from Bazaro Land. But the Laws governing how Products are Marketed/Advertised/Sold are Nothing New.

And what you Lie about when you sold me that e-liquid Doesn't have to Physical Hurt me. Or even have the Pontital to Hurt me. It is the Deceptive Practice that you are being Sued for.

So if water was the issue,crucifixions?
Mike

 

[zoiDman]

So if water was the issue,crucifixions?
Mike

???

No Clue what you are Trying to Say?

 

[Jman8]

This post continues to advertise your lack of knowledge about class action lawsuits, how the damages / financials are calculated, which are vastly different from personal lawsuits, where only person is compensated and number of attorneys and parties to the lawsuit are far more limited.

there is a reason the court made a determination that this action would be allowed to proceed as a class suit.

I also expect that there will be others joining the "class".

Quit while you're ahead. Really.

Truncated my post. Be happy I don't report you. Do it again, and I will.