I don't think i have come across a vendor yet that doesn't have a nic warning listed somewhere but i can't ever recall seeing a product with diketone warnings .
- Status
I think you Will start seeing them. As well as Prop 65 Warnings. If nothing Else, for CYA.
Which people do you observe this occurring in? What posts? Perhaps you are accurate, but perhaps you are engaging in deceptive rhetoric to make a point?
All buyers of all products have monetary harm. Regardless of how much they enjoy the product, that "harm" does occur to them.
In order to prove monetary harm they have to prove that AP and DA are in
fact causing harm and that disclosing these ingredients would have made
them worth less than the plaintiffs paid for them because they are more
harmful than the no risk liquids that do not use them. No risk is the term
they used. I wonder how the FDA will interpret this no risk health claim
under their new definition.
Regards
Mike
fact causing harm and that disclosing these ingredients would have made
them worth less than the plaintiffs paid for them because they are more
harmful than the no risk liquids that do not use them. No risk is the term
they used. I wonder how the FDA will interpret this no risk health claim
under their new definition.
Regards
Mike
Have a Lawyer read the Complaint to you. And them have Him/Her explain to you what Damages the Suit Bringers are seeking Remedy for.
In order to prove monetary harm they have to prove that AP and DA are in
fact causing harm and that disclosing these ingredients would have made
them worth less than the plaintiffs paid for them because they are more
harmful than the no risk liquids that do not use them. No risk is the term
they used. I wonder how the FDA will interpret this no risk health claim
under their new definition.
Regards
Mike
No. No they Don't. And it would be Silly to even Attempt to go down that Road.
What they will Argue is that Someone would Never have Purchased a Five Pawns e-Liquid if they had not been Deceived into Believing that the e-Liquid was Da or AP Free.
That will be the reason why lawsuits especially seeking financial damages will fail because it's impossible to prove harm at this point .
If it's about being unscrupulous and unethical the courts will be backed up till the cows come home (years) because i have seen how slow cows walk and they rarely come home (extremely aggravating actually) especially when your in a rush.
Already have. Two in Fact.
My Lawyer who handles Legal Affairs connected to the Company(ies) I own or have Interests in. And my Personal Lawyer who Handles everything Else.
IN the meantime, if you think it's okay to put titanium dioxide in eliquid, and have your customers unknowingly vape it, then you go ahead and buy from companies like that.Maybe you can testify in court on their behalf, too, and *protect* those kinds of practices.
I have to ask, just once, Did they actually do that, or use a Flavoring that - unknown to them - had the chemical in the mix?
Since you keep hammering this same incident in many discussions.
Were they Deliberately poisoning people, or was it an unfortunate over-site?
Are they still deliberately Poisoning people or has your unfortunate incident brought knowledge and resolve?
Allergy vs normality maybe -
Good read:
What the BLEEP is candy corn? » Scienceline
Not wishing to Diminish Your issues at all, however the data on it is all over the board with a lot of - if properly used comments - and - nothing is 100% safe assertions.
*** Yes, I agree ingredients should be labeled, ,or linked< as some bottles could not hold an entire list.***
A single Flavoring additive may contain dozens of chemicals balanced to create said Flavoring. A Dozen Flavorings may be used to Create one *Special Bottled Flavor*
Now we are expecting a list of perhaps 120 chemicals on the side of a 10ml bottle?
A single Drop - .1ml, may make the difference in overall flavor.
zioDman, I will try once more, not that it will do any good.
The "harm" the plaintiffs are filing for is that they paid $27.50 for a bottle of ejuice that they were assured / told did not contain DA and AP.
What they received was a bottle of ejuice containing DA and AP.
Thus 5P is therefore alleged to have participated in a deceptive marketing practice, since they knew months in advance, according to their own tests, that the eliquid did, indeed, contain DA and AP. Consumers who asked via email, phone, etc. were allegedly lied to.
It doesn't get much simpler than this.
(Out of here........is it really POSSIBLE that this many people can't read a lawsuit and understand what it is being filed for?)
The "harm" the plaintiffs are filing for is that they paid $27.50 for a bottle of ejuice that they were assured / told did not contain DA and AP.
What they received was a bottle of ejuice containing DA and AP.
Thus 5P is therefore alleged to have participated in a deceptive marketing practice, since they knew months in advance, according to their own tests, that the eliquid did, indeed, contain DA and AP. Consumers who asked via email, phone, etc. were allegedly lied to.
It doesn't get much simpler than this.
(Out of here........is it really POSSIBLE that this many people can't read a lawsuit and understand what it is being filed for?
)
Well they could say that about water and they would still have to prove why.
Regards
Mike
Thus 5P is therefore alleged to have participated in a deceptive marketing practice, since they knew months in advance, according to their own tests, that the eliquid did, indeed, contain DA and AP. Consumers who asked via email, phone, etc. were allegedly lied to.
It doesn't get much simpler than this.
(Out of here........is it really POSSIBLE that this many people can't read a lawsuit and understand what it is being filed for?
I think most understand the core issue of the lawsuit, but ignore it to continue arguing the DA/AP issue instead.
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.
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
The "Why" in this case is People who Don't want Da and or AP in their e-Liquids. And Won't Purchase them if they are Indeed in an e-Liquid.
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.
But Five Pawns Deceived me into think that it Didn't.
zioDman, I will try once more, not that it will do any good.
The "harm" the plaintiffs are filing for is that they paid $27.50 for a bottle of ejuice that they were assured / told did not contain DA and AP.
What they received was a bottle of ejuice containing DA and AP.
Thus 5P is therefore alleged to have participated in a deceptive marketing practice, since they knew months in advance, according to their own tests, that the eliquid did, indeed, contain DA and AP. Consumers who asked via email, phone, etc. were allegedly lied to.
It doesn't get much simpler than this.
(Out of here........is it really POSSIBLE that this many people can't read a lawsuit and understand what it is being filed for?
Again, this is not accurate.
If for sure doesn't explain why 3 people who bought the product, would seek 5 million dollars in damages. Thus, it is more than what you are suggesting "all that it is" and is based on other factors associated with risk/harm. And yes, I realize being class action it may be more people are privy to the money and that lawyers will want their fees. But the language around injury and why 5M are not saying it is is only about paying that amount and feeling cheated out given the alleged false claims.
On just what you are writing, if this is ALL the case is for, then I do see strong possibility that these consumers and any that wish to be part of class refunded their money. But if plaintiffs or plaintiffs lawyers are seeking disclosure that goes beyond this (which is what I keep harping on), then I would hope pro-vapers would want them to lose and lose bad. There are obviously nuances to this that are open for discussion, and likely already have been brought up, but IMO, your are WAY over simplifying what the suit is about, in much the same way a newbie to ECF might over simplify what FDA deeming is (seemingly) about.
And to be even more clear, as it relates squarely to the topic of this particular thread, it would easily be in the best interests of all vaping companies to never ever discuss DA/P issues with ANY customer going forward unless the likes of FDA or state law compels them to do so. Otherwise, all such assertions can, and likely will, be used against you. Which is pretty much what I've said all along. You want DA/P free juice, make it yourself or get out of the non-FDA market. Good riddance.
- Status
Similar threads
