Electronic Cigarette Seller Sued - Fines and Penalties Sought
- Thread starter Shining Wit
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Well, it really does not surprise me in the least with many like SE. They are in fact engaging in unfair and deceptive marketing practices:
"The complaint charges that Smoking Everywhere has engaged in the "deceptive sale and promotion of electronic cigarettes" which "causes immediate harm to public health, safety, and welfare." It says defendants made claims which were deceptive because "Defendants did not possess such evidence because such evidence does not exist." These claims included that e-cigarettes "are safer than traditional cigarettes."
The complaint also charges that Defendant wrongfully claims that its product contain "no harmful carcinogenic ingredients" and are "free of [cigarette-type] tar."
Defendants were also charged with failing to warn customers that "nicotine can cause dangerous increases in heart rate and blood pressure and should not be used by individuals with hypertension or heart disease."
Hard to defend against these claims made by SE and others absent prove. Maybe we will get some testing out of this litigation.
Sun
"The complaint charges that Smoking Everywhere has engaged in the "deceptive sale and promotion of electronic cigarettes" which "causes immediate harm to public health, safety, and welfare." It says defendants made claims which were deceptive because "Defendants did not possess such evidence because such evidence does not exist." These claims included that e-cigarettes "are safer than traditional cigarettes."
The complaint also charges that Defendant wrongfully claims that its product contain "no harmful carcinogenic ingredients" and are "free of [cigarette-type] tar."
Defendants were also charged with failing to warn customers that "nicotine can cause dangerous increases in heart rate and blood pressure and should not be used by individuals with hypertension or heart disease."
Hard to defend against these claims made by SE and others absent prove. Maybe we will get some testing out of this litigation.
Sun
I do not understand the merit of this lawsuit and what does paying the damages sought accomplish. How was ASH or the group that ASH represents harmed by the claims made by SE. Are they in a competitive business? Are they consumers of said products and experienced ill effects?
According to SE these are clearly not cigarettes or drugs. Simple recreational devices much like a tobacco pipe.
According to SE these are clearly not cigarettes or drugs. Simple recreational devices much like a tobacco pipe.
I have mixed emotions. Smoking Everywhere represents making all the wrong choices, and screwing over the consumer. The damage they've done to our hobby is incalculable. But ASH are no better than Westboro Baptist Church. They litigate for profit. Just a sad bunch of unskilled ambulance chasers with a sociopath with questionable intelligence at the helm.
For companies like SE, the merit is well founded---they made unfounded claims to Consumers---unproven health claims. The litigation asks for damages for every consumer unit sold. You do not have to have any ill effects to be a victim of misrepresentation and fraud. It is companies like SE that put us in this prediciment.
Sun
Wait a minute... let's hold on before we all get too excited.
Are we sure this isn't the AG's office from Oregon that is the plaintiff here?
Be careful folks. ASH is really good at leaving out pertinent information in order to get people all rauled up and we KNOW that in the good ole USA, people love to sue and once their neighbor does it... why not?
This SOUNDS like a trick!
Why do I think the plaintiff in this is the AG's office? Because in cases as such it is a $25,000 fine per incident. If this were a group of consumers, they would be going for more than $25,000 per incident. That wouldn't even cover their legal costs.
Wait till Sheri and LadyRaj see this!
Are we sure this isn't the AG's office from Oregon that is the plaintiff here?
Be careful folks. ASH is really good at leaving out pertinent information in order to get people all rauled up and we KNOW that in the good ole USA, people love to sue and once their neighbor does it... why not?
This SOUNDS like a trick!
Why do I think the plaintiff in this is the AG's office? Because in cases as such it is a $25,000 fine per incident. If this were a group of consumers, they would be going for more than $25,000 per incident. That wouldn't even cover their legal costs.
Wait till Sheri and LadyRaj see this!
Thank you for that Sun. Is that comment authoritative? I am reminded of a similar lawsuit by unemployed professionals that alleged that the importation of guest workers has damaged the labor marketplace. The judge threw it out because hr claimed that the hiring of the NIV's did not affect their jobs. How could it they do not have one. But that's an argument for another forum.
Thanks again.
Excellent catch there Lacey. You're 110% correct.
Thanks again.
Excellent catch there Lacey. You're 110% correct.
Last edited:
nJoy. They settled with the Oregon AG's office.
I am telling you... this is 100% between SE and the Oregon AG's office.
Positive of it. This is ASH's spin on this. This is old news to all of us
Just presented a totally different way, leaving out facts that make the story factual.
No where in the article does it say WHERE the lawsuit was filed.
Pretty suspicious IMHO to leave out that kind of info.
Sun -
I couldn't agree more. But my concern is that ASH is using deceptive writing to make people think that someone OTHER than the AG's office has done this... and that is not true.
That's all.
Anyone with deceptive marketing should be brought to the carpet.
I just don't want forum members to think that this is "New" as it isn't. It's just a deceptive way of presenting what is happening. That's all.
I couldn't agree more. But my concern is that ASH is using deceptive writing to make people think that someone OTHER than the AG's office has done this... and that is not true.
That's all.
Anyone with deceptive marketing should be brought to the carpet.
I just don't want forum members to think that this is "New" as it isn't. It's just a deceptive way of presenting what is happening. That's all.
The purpose of this suit is to make all p/v (E-Cig) sellers and supporters look bad.
They can show people that don't know anything but what they are told by the press.
That the e-cig is bad for you and any claims these people make are lies
Because there is no evidence either way about there benefit or not
And then somebody had to say something stupid on the Howard Stern show about kids looking cool useing e-cigs
THINK BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH ...Something my father always said
It was probably said in jest but everything said about e-cigs is being reported to these people and others of there kind
They will use anything at all to make e-cigs and there supporters look bad so don't give them any more ammo to use against us
This guy has been very busy writing press releases! And in each release he links back to other press releases in an effort add substance to his statements, but by simply referring to other press release written by himself this does not achieve this.
E-Cigarettes Hit on Many Fronts; Now Facing Two New Legal Challenges
"Professor Banzhaf says that e-cigarette sellers can expect more problems to develop, perhaps within the next several weeks. " lol
E-Cigarettes Hit on Many Fronts; Now Facing Two New Legal Challenges
"Professor Banzhaf says that e-cigarette sellers can expect more problems to develop, perhaps within the next several weeks. " lol
SE complied? When? I was under the impression that they hadn't complied, hence the actions taking by the AG's office to sue.
Do you mean nJoy? If you are right noting SE do you have a link? (not being argumentative... just want to make sure I did not miss this serious piece of info!)
Lacey is absolutely correct. I've searched all morning for this "new action" and have come up with zip. There is no link on Introduction to Action on Smoking and Health, ASH for Banzhaf to brag about and more importantly, there is nothing on Tobacco.org : Welcome either. A google and msn search turned up nothing (not even the PR-inside site).
Banzhaf is a PR savvy individual who likes to appear stronger than he is. I would not want to play poker with him. These are the heavy handed techniques you will see much more of in the future. To keep a topic alive he will add a new tidbit of information and speak in generalities. The comment on the Howard Stern show is an example. Most people are not aware of the sequence of events and he plays it like a fiddle. he loves misdirection.8-o
I see no links on the PR article that references the complaint that Banzhaf alludes to.
Banzhaf is a PR savvy individual who likes to appear stronger than he is. I would not want to play poker with him. These are the heavy handed techniques you will see much more of in the future. To keep a topic alive he will add a new tidbit of information and speak in generalities. The comment on the Howard Stern show is an example. Most people are not aware of the sequence of events and he plays it like a fiddle.
he loves misdirection.8-oI see no links on the PR article that references the complaint that Banzhaf alludes to.
Last edited:
Sun - I don't think this is correct. Do you have a link? I haven't read this anywhere and from what I am being told... this is not the case. PS. If this is true, that would be smart of them... but I would have to see something in order to believe that.
Ladyraj! Isn't this amazing!?!
there are no merits to this law suit.. its an abuse of the law by clever buggers to achieve their own vested interest ends.. which in this case is to cause damage to e cigs and anyone thats sells them..
to me it would need to be proven that the claims were false.. and knowingly made.. to call it a crime to make claims on the ground they cant be proven is total bollocks.. it should be up to the accuser to prove the claims were false and who made them knew they were false...
the land of the free dont sound that free to me any more if this kind of nonsense can go on...
trog
to me it would need to be proven that the claims were false.. and knowingly made.. to call it a crime to make claims on the ground they cant be proven is total bollocks.. it should be up to the accuser to prove the claims were false and who made them knew they were false...
the land of the free dont sound that free to me any more if this kind of nonsense can go on...
trog
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
