Five Pawns Class Action Lawsuit

[Jman8]

I'm also just going to add that I've been seeing many posts lately by many people on ECF (many who I know thru ECF and who know me) as saying, "well I don't vape in that manner, with that product, so no skin off my nose." As if, we are all divided because of the variations in products. Therefore if they go after mod devices, which I Jman8 do not use, don't care to use, I ought to just let that happen and let the mod users stand on their own trying to defend their need to use mod devices where I am perfectly okay not using them.

When did we get to this point? You vape unflavored now, and if opposition goes after flavors, you'll be okay with that??? Really?

What is purpose of CTA's then? If CTA is for something that I don't engage in, but that I think it could affect all vapers, I'm going to get involved, even if I think it might not affect me personally (today).

Heck, if I were opposition and I saw that sort of language, I'd think vapers may be passionate, but they will turn on each other very fast.

Many instances coming from vaping culture to suggest we will play a hand in decimating the industry. As if all ANTZ had to do was nudge us in that direction and we'd take up their call, and do their work for them.

 

[Elizabeth Baldwin]

If they can't prove 5P caused damages then maybe 5P can counter sue for character assassination! Loss of sales from this and all!

 

[zoiDman]

...

Me, I think it is matter for all vapers to get involved with, even if not part of Class in the lawsuit. ...

What do you want Vapers to Do?

 

[zoiDman]

I have some 5P clone recipes ... can I get in on this?

No. You have to Enjoin the Clone Lawsuit.

 

[Jman8]

What do you want Vapers to Do?

Many things. Essential things is stand by 5P, and stand by notion that vaping diketones has never been shown to be harmful to vapers.

Perhaps you can't stand 100% by 5P. I get that. But if you aren't 100% opposed to 5P, then you need to swallow the opposition part and stand by them based on this notion of harm.

I can see a CTA being directed to either plaintiff lawyers or some legal entity that asserts or rightfully questions the basis for "known harms that come with vaping DA/P."

I can also see some consumers of 5P saying they never felt lied to. Arguably many vapers, that are non 5P customers, could make that case. For their website doesn't claim this information.

So, in essence you either think 5P has no leg to stand on, and are willing to let them sink. If you really do not see them as having a leg to stand on, then I don't see how to convince you otherwise. But if you think they have any possible leg to stand on, then you'd be willing to come to their defense in say the same way someone might come to defense of Bill G. who is clearly in cahoots with opposition on anti-smoking rhetoric and policies (that are affecting us now), but who does have legitimate claims with being helpful to vaping industry/culture.

If you can swallow your opposition toward Bill G. and come to his defense, I really don't understand how you can't do it with 5P or any other company / entity that is easily identifiable as "on our side" and "currently in battle with opposition."

 

[AndriaD]

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."

I'd agree with all that, pretty much. I do think 5P was aware of the presence of those chemicals -- how could they not be? However no one has yet shown beyond a doubt that vaping those chemicals is in fact harmful in the same way that industrial exposure is harmful -- it's merely been extrapolated, usually by laymen, that this may be so. Though honestly, I'm not sure that a real test of that could ethically be done -- if it is true, then the studiers would be knowingly exposing test subjects to the potential for lung destruction. So it would seem that until vaping has been around for a while longer, with people willingly vaping ejuice which does contain diketones, it will be impossible to know for sure. So it really calls for willing guinea pigs -- and there are some of those, so perhaps soon it may be known if this assertion of harm is true or not -- not by hysterical media claims, but by diketone-vaping individuals being diagnosed with B. O. If none ever are, then I'd suppose that the whole subject is still somewhat up in the air, since it would seem impossible to prove a negative, except possibly by the sheer lack of any vapers being diagnosed with B. O. So far all I've seen on the matter is hysterical media accounts which do not sound like ACTUAL B. O.

Andria

 

[zoiDman]

Many things. Essential things is stand by 5P, and stand by notion that vaping diketones has never been shown to be harmful to vapers.

Perhaps you can't stand 100% by 5P. I get that. But if you aren't 100% opposed to 5P, then you need to swallow the opposition part and stand by them based on this notion of harm.

I can see a CTA being directed to either plaintiff lawyers or some legal entity that asserts or rightfully questions the basis for "known harms that come with vaping DA/P."

I can also see some consumers of 5P saying they never felt lied to. Arguably many vapers, that are non 5P customers, could make that case. For their website doesn't claim this information.

So, in essence you either think 5P has no leg to stand on, and are willing to let them sink. If you really do not see them as having a leg to stand on, then I don't see how to convince you otherwise. But if you think they have any possible leg to stand on, then you'd be willing to come to their defense in say the same way someone might come to defense of Bill G. who is clearly in cahoots with opposition on anti-smoking rhetoric and policies (that are affecting us now), but who does have legitimate claims with being helpful to vaping industry/culture.

If you can swallow your opposition toward Bill G. and come to his defense, I really don't understand how you can't do it with 5P or any other company / entity that is easily identifiable as "on our side" and "currently in battle with opposition."

If people feel that Five Pawns has been Honest, Disclosed Information in a Timely Manor and has Acted in Good Faith in the way they have Described what is in their e-Liquids, then People should Support them. If People Don't, then maybe they Shouldn't.

Because this Lawsuit seems to be Centered around on the Way that Five Pawns Advertised what Was and Allegedly Wasn't in their e-Liquids.

BTW - Where is all this Bill G. stuff coming from?

If you can swallow your opposition toward Bill G. and come to his defense, I really don't understand how you can't do it with 5P or any other company / entity that is easily identifiable as "on our side" and "currently in battle with opposition.

Why do you say I am Opposed to Bill G.? And what is meant by "coming to his defense"?

I have Allways viewed Bill G. as a Friend to the Vaping Community. And someone who has Fought Very Hard for All Vaper's. Perhaps you have me Confused with Another Member?

And Don't Understand Why you are Trying to tie Bill G. to this Five Pawns Lawsuit in the First Place?

 

[ImThatGuy]

Hmmm...timeline... Note that: DA/AP use is still a grey line since there's no empirical evidence, just as vaping as a whole.

Claims no DA/AP used in juices.
Runs own self-paid tests, but does not release to public.
Cloud9 runs own test of the 5P line and results are astronomical, including inconsistent nicotine levels. Shows to public. Public reacts.
5P orders a C&D to Cloud9 to stop tarnishing their name/product.
5P releases their own self-paid tests that was hidden from the public and shows existence of DA and AP that countered their original claim.

Now we are here...

They lied and got caught and now getting sued because DA/AP are very questionable ingredients to vaping. Consumers should know what they're vaping.

 

[zoiDman]

Hmmm...timeline... Note that: DA/AP use is still a grey line since there's no empirical evidence, just as vaping as a whole.

Claims no DA/AP used in juices.
Runs own self-paid tests, but does not release to public.
Cloud9 runs own test of the 5P line and results are astronomical, including inconsistent nicotine levels. Shows to public. Public reacts.
5P orders a C&D to Cloud9 to stop tarnishing their name/product.
5P releases their own self-paid tests that was hidden from the public and shows existence of DA and AP that countered their original claim.

Now we are here...

They lied and got caught and now getting sued because DA/AP are very questionable ingredients to vaping. Consumers should know what they're vaping.

I think you can add...

"Runs own self-paid tests, but does not release to public." above "Claims no DA/AP used in juices." in your Timeline.

Because I believe that Five Pawns had Testing Results in house prior to Making the Claim to Customers, Interested Individuals and Russ at "Click Bang" that their e-Liquids contained No Da or AP.

 

[Rossum]

Given parameters of the suit, I am part of Class in the lawsuit.

If you do not wish to be considered part of the Class, you should probably write the parties a letter explicitly stating so.

 

[sparkky1]

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.

Or ............ you could do what BT has been doing for years, what do you think they told people before warning labels were mandated ? did anyone scrutinize levels of "toxic" chemicals and do they now ?

 

[Jman8]

If people feel that Five Pawns has been Honest, Disclosed Information in a Timely Manor and has Acted in Good Faith in the way they have Described what is in their e-Liquids, then People should Support them. If People Don't, then maybe they Shouldn't.

Because this Lawsuit seems to be Centered around on the Way that Five Pawns Advertised what Was and Allegedly Wasn't in their e-Liquids.

BTW - Where is all this Bill G. stuff coming from?

If people feel Bill G. has always been on the side of pro nicotine issues, always helpful to their cause for recreational freedoms and acted in Good Faith, then people should support him. If he has not, then maybe they shouldn't.

That's how BG comes in.

The point is that there is not one single entity that I'm aware of in vaping culture that has 100% support. Does this mean that if you don't support them 100%, you should not support them ever?

This lawsuit is clearly ANTZ attacking the industry. If you've read the document, you would know this won't stop with 5P. This is EXACTLY LIKE reading FDA proposal, and making certain connections that aren't explicitly stated.

So fine, take to task the idea that 5P lied to customers. I get that. I disagree with it, and I'll debate that on forum. It's no different to me then if I take to task stuff that Bill G. has done (when he was ANTZ) and people come to his defense. All that remains open game regardless of who comes to his defense. But it becomes highly disingenuous to suggest he has never been on the side of vaping, as it does with 5P.

The lawsuit is clearly against the industry.

If you all wish to ignore this, then I'll play the "see, I told you so" game with you.

We think lawsuits are our last resort / recourse to overcoming zealous regulations. Apparently ANTZ sees lawsuits as a very promising way to decimate the industry.

And I dunno, hasn't Bill G. bragged about successfully suing companies in the past? It's like you all are paying attention half the time and not connecting dots that are easily connected.

 

[zoiDman]

If people feel Bill G. has always been on the side of pro nicotine issues, always helpful to their cause for recreational freedoms and acted in Good Faith, then people should support him. If he has not, then maybe they shouldn't.

That's how BG comes in.

The point is that there is not one single entity that I'm aware of in vaping culture that has 100% support. Does this mean that if you don't support them 100%, you should not support them ever?

This lawsuit is clearly ANTZ attacking the industry. If you've read the document, you would know this won't stop with 5P. This is EXACTLY LIKE reading FDA proposal, and making certain connections that aren't explicitly stated.

So fine, take to task the idea that 5P lied to customers. I get that. I disagree with it, and I'll debate that on forum. It's no different to me then if I take to task stuff that Bill G. has done (when he was ANTZ) and people come to his defense. All that remains open game regardless of who comes to his defense. But it becomes highly disingenuous to suggest he has never been on the side of vaping, as it does with 5P.

The lawsuit is clearly against the industry.

If you all wish to ignore this, then I'll play the "see, I told you so" game with you.

We think lawsuits are our last resort / recourse to overcoming zealous regulations. Apparently ANTZ sees lawsuits as a very promising way to decimate the industry.

And I dunno, hasn't Bill G. bragged about successfully suing companies in the past? It's like you all are paying attention half the time and not connecting dots that are easily connected.

Hey I dunno what this thing is that You have against Bill G. But Leave me Out of it.

And if you see Everything as having an ANTZ's behind it, that is Your Prerogative. Seems like a Nice Catch-All for Anything you Don't Like.

 

[sparkky1]

Hmmm...timeline... Note that: DA/AP use is still a grey line since there's no empirical evidence, just as vaping as a whole.

Claims no DA/AP used in juices.
Runs own self-paid tests, but does not release to public.
Cloud9 runs own test of the 5P line and results are astronomical, including inconsistent nicotine levels. Shows to public. Public reacts.
5P orders a C&D to Cloud9 to stop tarnishing their name/product.
5P releases their own self-paid tests that was hidden from the public and shows existence of DA and AP that countered their original claim.

Now we are here...

They lied and got caught and now getting sued because DA/AP are very questionable ingredients to vaping. Consumers should know what they're vaping.

2 compounds are very questionable ingredients ? seriously ? so these 599 are good to go ? Cigarette Ingredients - Chemicals in Cigarettes
And the said 2 compounds are on this list as well as butyric acid, funny thing is there's a big difference in lies Jeffrey Wigand : Testimony of the 7 CEOs of Big Tobacco than there is for a "plausible explanation" of being a very questionable ingredient.

 

[Jman8]

Hmmm...timeline... Note that: DA/AP use is still a grey line since there's no empirical evidence, just as vaping as a whole.

Claims no DA/AP used in juices.

Many eLiquid vendors have made exact same claim.

Runs own self-paid tests, but does not release to public.

Test was run via crowd-funding for many of these vendors (by Dr. et al), but who is over exactly is not released to the public.

Cloud9 runs own test of the 5P line and results are astronomical, including inconsistent nicotine levels. Shows to public. Public reacts.
5P orders a C&D to Cloud9 to stop tarnishing their name/product.
5P releases their own self-paid tests that was hidden from the public and shows existence of DA and AP that countered their original claim.

Now we are here...

Yes, here we are. At a place where arguably anyone that claimed DA/P free product is subject to this lawsuit. A lawsuit not based on actual harm, but on "they lied to me." So, what's to stop anyone from bringing exact same lawsuit against any eLiquid company that arguably did lie to customers when they made the claim(s)? You lose some, and lose money trying to nail them on actual lie and possible harm. So be it. You win millions on all those that did lie, and that have engaged in possible harm to customers, that even some vapers will treat as "actual harm" despite no evidence.

They lied and got caught and now getting sued because DA/AP are very questionable ingredients to vaping. Consumers should know what they're vaping.

They have not advertised as DA/P free. That is, as I noted earlier what part of the case hinges on. Other companies have advertised as such, and if there product were run through $200 test showing trace amounts or higher, then they are equal in lie to 5P. Arguably worse, because they advertised it, but arguably less because 5P's alleged lie is exacerbated by the typical denial that all these companies used when they realized flavor manufacturers weren't accurate on their own claim of DA/P free flavoring. With 5P, the whole debacle, alleged lying, was more pronounced. To not see the entire industry as subject to this lie is, IMO to not really be looking at what is occurring.

Then to add to this that all we are talking about, in reality, is "questionable ingredients" when arguably all ingredients are questionable, for no one has ANY EVIDENCE on the long term effects of vaping these ingredients. This means that opposition has managed to take FUD claims and have segment of vaping population second guess their own claims, your own claims, some of which I've seen you all link to, some of which I've seen some of you link to within the last week, whereby vapers are saying vaping is 95% (or higher) less harmful than smoking. If ingredients are questionable to the level that "potential harm" is now equal to actual harm and ought to be treated as such, then the claims that vaping is safer than smoking are entirely questionable.

Congratulations on helping 'us' get to this place.

 

[Jman8]

Hey I dunno what this thing is that You have against Bill G. But Leave me Out of it.

Bill G. was former ANTZ and is still proud of it, what he did. Those same policies that shaped FSPTCA are working against us today. That alone, makes whatever 5P has done, even at worst case scenario, seem like angels in the choir. But most vapers want to downplay that to level of sheer ignorance and focus only on ways he has helped vaping. To ignore any notion that 5P has helped vaping, vaping ideology/culture, is plain ignorance.

And if you see Everything as having an ANTZ's behind it, that is Your Prerogative. Seems like a Nice Catch-All for Anything you Don't Like.

Baseless accusation. May want to stick to points rather than attacking the poster.

 

[ImThatGuy]

You're going to compare cigarette ingredients to e-liquid ingredients???

 

[zoiDman]

Bill G. was former ANTZ and is still proud of it, what he did. Those same policies that shaped FSPTCA are working against us today. That alone, makes whatever 5P has done, even at worst case scenario, seem like angels in the choir. But most vapers want to downplay that to level of sheer ignorance and focus only on ways he has helped vaping. To ignore any notion that 5P has helped vaping, vaping ideology/culture, is plain ignorance.




Baseless accusation. May want to stick to points rather than attacking the poster.

Seems like you are Just Using this Thread as a Platform to Bash Bill G. to me. Funny, considering then you say how we should be Sticking to Points.

 

[ImThatGuy]

Question: what other companies made the claim of being da/ap free and got proven otherwise? Didn't hear of any other company. Just a question for information, not a rebuttal.

 

[ImThatGuy]

Tests was run via crowd funding? They hired the company themselves. No crowd funding involved.