Five Pawns Class Action Lawsuit

[Jman8]

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.

Another baseless accusation. I'm using the Bill G. support as analogy to why 5P deserves support now. If you are glad 5P has this lawsuit against them, or think they deserve it, then you are siding with plaintiffs. May want to read thru entire document before making such (silly) assertions. Would be like any person that comes onto ECF and says, "I think child proof caps are a good idea. I don't see why you all are so against FDA deeming. Seems like anyone that resists this must want children to get hurt by the reasonable regulations that FDA has put forth."

IOW, taking just one part of the document and thinking it makes for completely legitimate case (against 5P).

As I've already done in this thread, but now will do so rhetorically, let's ask these questions:

1 - Is 5P the only eliquid company to claim DA/P free product, and then that turn out to be false based on information conveyed to all vapers who pay attention to these matters?

2 - Has 5P engaged in malicious intent to harm its customers?

3 - If so, what is this based on? If based on "lie by omission," then are not all companies that receive 'yes' answer to question 1, subject to same malicious intent?

4 - What ingredients in current eliquid (flavored or not) are not questionable? And/or which ingredients in eLiquid do we have long term data on inhaling through vaping? If there are none, then aren't all ingredients (very) questionable?

 

[zoiDman]

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.

That seems to be the One Small Little Technicality that some People would like to Glaze Over.

And will make Attempts to Shift the Focus away from this. Onto Unrelated Issues. Or Unrelated People.

 

[Jman8]

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.

The information you seek, I don't wish to provide. Not where I stand on the issue, sorry.

The point I am making, that ought to really be seriously taken into consideration is - arguably all eLiquid companies have lied about being DA/P free. To not understand this assertion, is to not understand what this case is actually about.

 

[Jman8]

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

Crowd-funding and industry funding. Both actually.

Very trivial point in reality, just as self paid testing is trivial.

 

[Jman8]

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

You mean a product with (allegedly) known instances of harm, and a product that lacks 30 year old verification on all its ingredients, and is therefore questionable? You're right, not a fair comparison. One the public is sure has degree of harm with it. The other is one that vapers want to convince themselves in some political discussions as "not all that bad" and in other discussions, treat as arguably more dangerous than smoking, for all we know. Need more time to be sure.

 

[Jman8]

That seems to be the One Small Little Technicality that some People would like to Glaze Over.

Are you implying that 5P is the only company to claim DA/P free in the eLiquid industry? The only one to claim it and it later be proven to not be the case?

Hope you don't glaze over these questions directed right at you.

 

[zoiDman]

Are you implying that 5P is the only company to claim DA/P free in the eLiquid industry? The only one to claim it and it later be proven to not be the case?

Hope you don't glaze over these questions directed right at you.

Please Name them.

 

[ImThatGuy]

That seems to be the One Small Little Technicality that some People would like to Glaze Over.

And will make Attempts to Shift the Focus away from this. Onto Unrelated Issues. Or Unrelated People.

Actually it was an informative question just for information. This one person would like to glaze over it.

 

[zoiDman]

Actually it was an informative question just for information. This one person would like to glaze over it.

Yeah... And what I can't Figure Out is why He is So Concerned for this Company?

If Five Pawns did Nothing Wrong, then the Case will get Thrown Out. And think of All the Free Advertising they are Getting over it.

You would think he would be Happy?

 

[herb]

The problem for the plaintiffs is clear , two things specifically , #1 is unless they have documentation proving that there was a conversation with "Five Pawns" management where they clearly said their juices are free of that stuff etc..they have no chance and even if proven i don't think it means anything .

I could be wrong but as far as i know vendors are not required to tell you the truth about whats really in their juices so most will not . Why Five Pawns is being singled out over so many others who have done the same thing is beyond me , maybe it's the sky high levels that some of their juices were found to contain but who knows.

These folks are out of luck imo as it's way way too early to know what health consequences will unfold and i don't think that will be known for years to come , possibly decades.

The only thing we know now is that it permanently scars lung tissue which is irreversible but what does that mean ? That probably doesn't mean anything and might not effect lung function in the least , nobody knows.

That time will come , i'm sure most would like to know now but thats not how life works . It is a concern imo that people are vaping juices at much much higher wattages now then in the past and juice consumption has gone through the roof with these ohm tanks being so popular .

Whether that will effect ones health in anyway is impossible to say , as adults you have choices, we are all smart enough to know that whatever actions we take is our choice , consequences and all .

Using common sense is always advised of course

 

[zoiDman]

In this Particular Lawsuit, does the Plaintiff need to show that Diketones have Damaged them for them to be awarded a judgment?

 

[Jman8]

Please Name them.

Please name who? I asked you as question. Answer my questions first please.

 

[Jman8]

Yeah... And what I can't Figure Out is why He is So Concerned for this Company?

I'm concerned with the industry. I've made it clear this will impact the industry. Like arguing that because BT will have no problem with FDA deeming, why are you so concerned with those companies that can't make the cut?

If Five Pawns did Nothing Wrong, then the Case will get Thrown Out. And think of All the Free Advertising they are Getting over it.

You would think he would be Happy?

5P did the very similar thing wrong that several other companies did.

You would think politically aware vapers would understand this as an attack by opposition against the industry. I look forward to the Carls, Bills, and Siegels saying the same thing and watching the little light bulb go on for certain people. Claiming they considered that the whole time, but weren't quite sure.

If all eCig companies can simply comply with FDA standards, then nothing to worry about with FDA deeming. If not, then good riddance. You'd think vapers would be happy with FDA deeming...

...is how I interpret your post.

 

[zoiDman]

Glad you are Concerned for the Industry Jman8.

But anyone who has been Involved with just about Any Industry (or even someone who has taking a few Business courses at Night) knows that Lawsuits are part of it. And in a "Free Market", what other Recourse is there for Someone to Seek Remedies?

You want Free Markets, Right? So this is how Problems are Resolved. Thru the Court System. Don't know why you have your Knickers in such a Twist over All of this?

If Five Pawns did Nothing Wrong, then they will be Exonerated. And if they Did Do Something Wrong, then Involved Parties have a Right in a Free Market (or Any Market) to seek Damages.

 

[Jman8]

Glad you are Concerned for the Industry Jman8.

But anyone who has been Involved with just about Any Industry (or even someone who has taking a few Business courses at Night) knows that Lawsuits are part of it. And in a "Free Market", what other Recourse is there for Someone to Seek Remedies?

Plenty of other recourses. Not sure you would understand. Pretty sure you wouldn't listen.

You want Free Markets, Right? So this is how Problems are Resolved. Thru the Court System. Don't know why you have your Knickers in such a Twist over All of this?

Don't know why you are filtering this the way you are. Feeling very confident that when a so called vaping leader says otherwise, you will whistle a different tune.

If Five Pawns did Nothing Wrong, then they will be Exonerated. And if they Did Do Something Wrong, then Involved Parties have a Right in a Free Market (or Any Market) to seek Damages.

The pertinent question on pro-vaping forum is for each vaper to be entirely clear on what the vendor did wrong, and discuss if same wrong doing has occurred by other vendors. Again, to not realize the connection to entire industry is to not understand what this case is about. Arguably all vendors are doing something "wrong" for we have no long term data on any ingredient in eLiquid. PG is plausibly dangerous/questionable when inhaled. If plaintiffs went after any company on that, would your attitude be the exact same as it is now (same words from this post) or would you want to strongly refute such claims from that type of plaintiff. Pretty sure I know your actual answer, but wonder which direction you want to go, in a possible response to this post.

 

[smacuser]

.IInterested Individuals and Russ at "Click Bang" that their e-Liquids contained No Da or AP.

I heard Russ saying he was wanting to put this together, funny he's been off the air for almost over a month

 

[Rossum]

@Jman8, do you really believe that we, the vaping community, should stand behind every vendor in the industry no matter what they do?

 

[Rossum]

Arguably all vendors are doing something "wrong" for we have no long term data on any ingredient in eLiquid. PG is plausibly dangerous/questionable when inhaled.

Unless a vendor denies that their juice contains PG when in fact they know it does, this is not at all the same thing.

5P isn't being sued because there were diketones in their juice. They're getting sued because they denied it every time anyone asked them, despite having test results that showed otherwise for close to a year before C9 busted them.

 

[Jman8]

@Jman8, do you really believe that we, the vaping community, should stand behind every vendor in the industry no matter what they do?

I think we ought to stand up for whatever part of a case is being brought against them that could (easily) be used against any/all other vendors.

I'll ask you the question I ask zoid. Do you think 5P is the only one to tell the alleged lie that is being attributed to them in this case, that their product is DA-free, when it was in fact not?

If by chance you say, no they are not, then I am curious how many you think it could impact? Like do you think 3 or 4, or more like a number in percentages (say 25%). And if in percentages, do you then realize that this case could easily lead to floodgates open for all companies to answer to what plaintiffs are saying (explicitly) in the lawsuit?

I also do think the case is brought by ANTZ and/or ANTZ-like entities. I wonder if that matters to you at all. I think I know you well enough that if that were shown (say in a piece by Carl), that you'd be disgusted by the lawsuit. So, when you ask me the question you chose to ask me, this is what I am filtering it through. The fact that it could apply to a percentage of vendors (I estimate around 30%), that it would be in plaintiffs interest to go after more than one company, and if it is ANTZ driven, it would make sense to go after all companies. So what if you lose some along the way? No really, why would that be a bad thing from ANTZ perspective??

 

[zoiDman]

Plenty of other recourses. Not sure you would understand. Pretty sure you wouldn't listen.



Don't know why you are filtering this the way you are. Feeling very confident that when a so called vaping leader says otherwise, you will whistle a different tune.



The pertinent question on pro-vaping forum is for each vaper to be entirely clear on what the vendor did wrong, and discuss if same wrong doing has occurred by other vendors. Again, to not realize the connection to entire industry is to not understand what this case is about. Arguably all vendors are doing something "wrong" for we have no long term data on any ingredient in eLiquid. PG is plausibly dangerous/questionable when inhaled. If plaintiffs went after any company on that, would your attitude be the exact same as it is now (same words from this post) or would you want to strongly refute such claims from that type of plaintiff. Pretty sure I know your actual answer, but wonder which direction you want to go, in a possible response to this post.

This will be about the Last Reply to you. Because you seem to keep up a Back-n-Forth for who Knows How Long.

But here is the Big Question you can Ask Yourself.

"If Five Pawns had just Told the Truth when they were Asked if their e-Liquids Contain either Da or AP, would they be in the Mess they are in Today?"

And would there be the Need to have Post after Post after Post of Dreaming Up Justifications of why we should all come Rushing to their Aid?

Telling the Truth is a Very Simple Concept Jman8. And one that People in Business Learn Very Quick can have Legal Ramifications when they Don't.