Has this been discussed already?
Why did it take so long?
Why did it take so long?
Five Pawns Class Action Lawsuit
- Thread starter ImThatGuy
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- five pawns
- Status
As I said in another thread where I first saw this document....
The case in the portion I read (about 1/3rd of overall document) is knock on entire industry, but could be understood as only going after 5P. If plaintiffs win, I doubt it will translate into only going against 5P.
I see it as ANTZ attack, but am open to considering it as something that is less than that. I currently stand by ANTZ attack and would highlight say 50 lines from the portion of the document that I read that would make the case for it as an ANTZ attack.
It is putting DA issue on trial and what is claimed as "known in the document" is not known. But if 5P doesn't bring own scientists or brings in people that can't make case that is, IMO, legitimate rebuttal, then I do see plaintiff being awarded the monetary damages they seek and/or 5P lawyers advocating for settlement, which would amount to 5P agreeing that DA is harmful (to vapers) and making restitution to plaintiffs (paying them money). Plus, it would mean that any company that had this in their product is plausibly open to similar case being brought against them.
For that reason, I hope the plaintiffs lose. And lose bad.
The case in the portion I read (about 1/3rd of overall document) is knock on entire industry, but could be understood as only going after 5P. If plaintiffs win, I doubt it will translate into only going against 5P.
I see it as ANTZ attack, but am open to considering it as something that is less than that. I currently stand by ANTZ attack and would highlight say 50 lines from the portion of the document that I read that would make the case for it as an ANTZ attack.
It is putting DA issue on trial and what is claimed as "known in the document" is not known. But if 5P doesn't bring own scientists or brings in people that can't make case that is, IMO, legitimate rebuttal, then I do see plaintiff being awarded the monetary damages they seek and/or 5P lawyers advocating for settlement, which would amount to 5P agreeing that DA is harmful (to vapers) and making restitution to plaintiffs (paying them money). Plus, it would mean that any company that had this in their product is plausibly open to similar case being brought against them.
For that reason, I hope the plaintiffs lose. And lose bad.
Makes me wonder if the original owners, two or three (forgot), who left the company saw their end when this whole debacle happened...
As someone who is (arguably) part of Class in the suit (from what I've read), I'm tempted to write / go after the lawyers (in a reasonable way) and put them on spot of "known harms." I think they can't back that up. I would like to do that publicly and yet, right now am just spouting off rather than being entirely serious. I realize it'd probably be best to have my own atty if I chose to go in that direction.
The case really does hinge on 2 points as far as I can tell (after perusing 100% of the document, though not thoroughly):
1 - Most importantly is notion that DA is harmful and that a) 5P knew this, specifically as it relates to vaping, plus b) that this harm can be shown as specifically harming vapers
2 - that 5P knowingly lied to its customer base about the presence of DA in its liquid
On the second one I think they will get nailed. But if the first one is not accurate, then it could come down to "no harm, no foul."
There's about 80 other nuances to be had in the case, but those really have to do with how DA has been treated in the industry (both vaping and smoking, but likely will only come up for vaping industry). I really do think if 5P is nailed on this, it would open up floodgates to any other vendor that claimed DA free and it was found they were "lying." And if this is in fact ANTZ driven, then really won't matter what vapers feel ought to happen, ANTZ will seek to bankrupt industry at a time when FDA has policies in place designed to bankrupt the industry.
IMO, vaping consumers ought to fight, and fight very hard, to overcome this lawsuit for sake of vaping. But I'm kinda thinking many vapers will say "5P had it coming to them" and filter what the document is saying as "it can really only affect 5P if plaintiffs win."
The case really does hinge on 2 points as far as I can tell (after perusing 100% of the document, though not thoroughly):
1 - Most importantly is notion that DA is harmful and that a) 5P knew this, specifically as it relates to vaping, plus b) that this harm can be shown as specifically harming vapers
2 - that 5P knowingly lied to its customer base about the presence of DA in its liquid
On the second one I think they will get nailed. But if the first one is not accurate, then it could come down to "no harm, no foul."
There's about 80 other nuances to be had in the case, but those really have to do with how DA has been treated in the industry (both vaping and smoking, but likely will only come up for vaping industry). I really do think if 5P is nailed on this, it would open up floodgates to any other vendor that claimed DA free and it was found they were "lying." And if this is in fact ANTZ driven, then really won't matter what vapers feel ought to happen, ANTZ will seek to bankrupt industry at a time when FDA has policies in place designed to bankrupt the industry.
IMO, vaping consumers ought to fight, and fight very hard, to overcome this lawsuit for sake of vaping. But I'm kinda thinking many vapers will say "5P had it coming to them" and filter what the document is saying as "it can really only affect 5P if plaintiffs win."
In simple words, this lawsuit is not as simple as a lawsuit against a juice company. Its a lawsuit against the vaping community.
Not necessarily, the allegations are construed of false advertisement, the rest is complete hearsay, not to mention very hard to sue for punitive damages when none of the defendants have had any proven harmful damage become of them.
So as far as the California penal code what are they in violation of ? making e juice with non FDA approved flavoring extracts ? not stating on labels / website of the dangers of said compounds theoretically proven in popcorn factor's ?
Not any one single cigarette company's surgeon general labels contain dangers of DAP information on them nor do the BT brand ecigs.
Although the jury is out as to how much harm diketones may cause vapers, the fact that company representatives denied their presence after the company's own testing showed that to be untrue is the point, I believe.
Good chance that staff will be blamed and the company will be found blameless.
Agreed, it would be very hard to pin (absolute or otherwise) blame for popcorn lung on vaping 5pawns liquids, especially if the user has ever smoked cigarettes.
The other part is what really should be the point of the case, the misleading of consumers about the chemical composition of the liquids sold.
IF I were a juice vendor then I would follow Nicoticket's lead, in stating that all liquids are consumed at the owner's risk and all that kind of jazz which removes culpability.
I wonder who among us actually believe that opposition will stop at 5P on this matter if plaintiffs' case is deemed successful?
If getting millions of dollars from this case (via jury award or settlement), then why not go after every vendor, and drain them of funds? Win some, lose some and decimate the industry in the process.
I would venture to say that if there is Documented Evidence that an OEM/Seller has Intentionally Misrepresented what is in an e-Liquid, then Yes, there would be Future Litigations.
Dr. F. study showed that many companies who claimed DA-free were in fact not. Dr. F. did not disclose which those were. So, if you think like opposition does on this, then why wouldn't you go after all of them? Tie the industry up in court. Watch them wiggle, and lose funds (for defense) in the process. So, you (opposition) loses one out of every 5 cases, or say even only win one out of every 5 cases. What would be wrong from opposition's perspective of taking all vaping companies to trial over this? If they lose the 5P case, it might seem foolish to try any other case. But if they win that one, what would they have to lose? Would then need to take a string of defeats (probably around 10 or more in a row) for opposition to conclude the DA/P trials are on hold indefinitely, now let's go after inhaling PG as dangerous, and see how long we can run on that one.
Really Doesn't Matter what I think One Way or the Other. Because I am not a Party Bringing forth a Suit.
Those are the Individuals who are Seeking a Remedy.
This is rediculous! You have to prove damage. If these people were not damaged then they have no fight. Lawyers are like sharks! They'll bite anything, but will spit out anything that doesn't taste good.
Have you seen all those crazy commercials? All of them start out with "have you been injured by". If these people can't prove damage they'll lose.
Have you seen all those crazy commercials? All of them start out with "have you been injured by". If these people can't prove damage they'll lose.
Given parameters of the suit, I am part of Class in the lawsuit. So apparently, it does matter what I think. At least based on what you are getting across.
Me, I think it is matter for all vapers to get involved with, even if not part of Class in the lawsuit. But hey, if Jman can't convince you to think about it as something you may wish to consider involving yourself in, perhaps if/when Bill G. or CASAA suggest similar thing, you'll whistle a different tune.
- Status
