http://www.ceh.org/news-events/press-releases/content/ceh-initiates-legal-action-vaping-dangers/
http://dryhit.com/ceh1.pdf & http://dryhit.com/ceh2.pdf
http://dryhit.com/ceh1.pdf & http://dryhit.com/ceh2.pdf
Is this what it was all about? CA AstroTurf group sues the Vaping industry
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
BWAAAAAA!
They cite the debunked NEJM and the 'there are traces of heavy metals' FUD - but has anyone seen anything on this mythical marketing survey or the health study about nicotine absorption levels?
I'd love to see joyetech and 5 Pawns - or all of them to join as a class if they could - take them to court and argue the merits or lack thereof in CEH's position.
ETA: Somehow it's fitting that Nicopure Labs is on the list though..
They cite the debunked NEJM and the 'there are traces of heavy metals' FUD - but has anyone seen anything on this mythical marketing survey or the health study about nicotine absorption levels?
I'd love to see joyetech and 5 Pawns - or all of them to join as a class if they could - take them to court and argue the merits or lack thereof in CEH's position.
ETA: Somehow it's fitting that Nicopure Labs is on the list though..
Last edited:
Near the bottom of the pdf DrMA linked to:
3. Members of my firm and I have consulted with one or more persons with relevant
and appropriate experience or expertise who has reviewed facts, studies or other
data regarding the exposures to the listed chemical [nicotine] that is the subject
of the action.
5. The copy of the Certificate of Merit served on the Attorney General attaches to it
factual information... i.e. (1) the identity of the persons consulted
with and relied on by the certifier, and (2) the facts, studies or other data reviewed by those
persons.
What do you want to bet Stanton Glantz is very likely the identity of the "one or more persons" the Center for Environmental Health consulted. Or at the very least, was probably an author of a great deal of the "facts, studies or other data" the attorney for the CEH provided to "establish a basis for this certificate."
Heck, maybe Glantz contacted the CEH first, to get this muddy ball rolling.
3. Members of my firm and I have consulted with one or more persons with relevant
and appropriate experience or expertise who has reviewed facts, studies or other
data regarding the exposures to the listed chemical [nicotine] that is the subject
of the action.
5. The copy of the Certificate of Merit served on the Attorney General attaches to it
factual information... i.e. (1) the identity of the persons consulted
with and relied on by the certifier, and (2) the facts, studies or other data reviewed by those
persons.
What do you want to bet Stanton Glantz is very likely the identity of the "one or more persons" the Center for Environmental Health consulted. Or at the very least, was probably an author of a great deal of the "facts, studies or other data" the attorney for the CEH provided to "establish a basis for this certificate."
Heck, maybe Glantz contacted the CEH first, to get this muddy ball rolling.
This is a unique opportunity to expose ANTZ lies in court. The CEH extortion attempt may just be the undoing of the entire CA TC Industry.
That's along the lines of what I was thinking. It would be nice to take down CEH and Stan, who undoubtedly was one of their so called experts, in court. Given the cost to defend the suit, it's wishful thinking that they could unite as a class and respond as one. Unfortunately, it's divide and conquer, legal extortion.
Somebody neglected to pass this info onto my fornicating grandfather... who sired 17 children while smoking 3 packs of unfiltered Lucky's every day for 40 years.
'Spose it depends on where you are sticking that nicotine - and so far I don't recall "that" being recommended by anyone.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can see this case being dismissed, because none of the plaintiffs have any actual standing to bring suit. It is being filed on behalf of "consumers" who don't actually use any product that they're attempting to collect damages from. Can anybody say "Perjury"
if i had all day i would post 100000 face palms in this post.
this is what bunny thinks.
regards
mike
this is what bunny thinks.
regards
mike
Is this act enforceable on "violators" from other states if they do not have their own physical presence in California? Or do all of the named defendants have their own shop in CA/ operate out of CA? Unfortunately reading the act there are no exceptions that seem to apply... This act in fact does say anything on the schedule must carry a warning the only exception seems to be (a) An exposure for which federal law governs warning in a manner that preempts state authority. (which would protect cigarettes from this requirement)
25249.6. Required Warning Before Exposure To Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer Or Reproductive Toxicity.No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual, except as provided in Section 25249.10.
Nicotine regardless of any actual studies will be on this list for California
It actually seems like this could stick... and at a maximum of $2500/day/exposure...
seems like the best option would be (2) Within 14 days after service of the notice, the alleged violator has done all of the following:
(A) Corrected the alleged violation.
(B) (i) Agreed to pay a civil penalty for the alleged violation of Section 25496.6 in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500), to be adjusted quinquennially pursuant to clause (ii), per facility or premises where the alleged violation occurred, of which 75 percent shall be deposited in the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Fund, and 25 percent shall be paid to the person that served the notice as provided in Section 25249.12.
(ii) On April 1, 2019, and at each five-year interval thereafter, the dollar amount of the civil penalty provided pursuant to this subparagraph shall be adjusted by the Judicial Council based on the change in the annual California Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Statistics, for the most recent five-year period ending on December 31 of the year preceding the year in which the adjustment is made, rounded to the nearest five dollars ($5). The Judicial Council shall quinquennially publish the dollar amount of the adjusted civil penalty provided pursuant to this subparagraph, together with the date of the next scheduled adjustment.
(C) Notified, in writing, the person that served the notice of the alleged violation, that the violation has been corrected. The written notice shall include the notice of special compliance procedure and proof of compliance form specified in subdivision (l), which was provided by the person serving notice of the alleged violation and which shall be completed by the alleged violator as directed in the notice.
(3) The alleged violator shall deliver the civil penalty to the person that served the notice of the alleged violation within 30 days of service of that notice, and the person that served the notice of violation shall remit the portion of the penalty due to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Fund within 30 days of receipt of the funds from the alleged violator.
(l) The notice required to be provided to an alleged violator pursuant to subdivision (k) shall be presented as follows: (Form from this point on)
I think they might need to pay $500 per location issue the recall notice and send the form to CEH and adjust their packing to have warning labels immediately. Otherwise they will get destroyed by this legislation. I can't see a judge holding back on "unwarned nicotine exposure" considering how "evil" nicotine is at least in California
25249.6. Required Warning Before Exposure To Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer Or Reproductive Toxicity.No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual, except as provided in Section 25249.10.
Nicotine regardless of any actual studies will be on this list for California
It actually seems like this could stick... and at a maximum of $2500/day/exposure...
seems like the best option would be (2) Within 14 days after service of the notice, the alleged violator has done all of the following:
(A) Corrected the alleged violation.
(B) (i) Agreed to pay a civil penalty for the alleged violation of Section 25496.6 in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500), to be adjusted quinquennially pursuant to clause (ii), per facility or premises where the alleged violation occurred, of which 75 percent shall be deposited in the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Fund, and 25 percent shall be paid to the person that served the notice as provided in Section 25249.12.
(ii) On April 1, 2019, and at each five-year interval thereafter, the dollar amount of the civil penalty provided pursuant to this subparagraph shall be adjusted by the Judicial Council based on the change in the annual California Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Statistics, for the most recent five-year period ending on December 31 of the year preceding the year in which the adjustment is made, rounded to the nearest five dollars ($5). The Judicial Council shall quinquennially publish the dollar amount of the adjusted civil penalty provided pursuant to this subparagraph, together with the date of the next scheduled adjustment.
(C) Notified, in writing, the person that served the notice of the alleged violation, that the violation has been corrected. The written notice shall include the notice of special compliance procedure and proof of compliance form specified in subdivision (l), which was provided by the person serving notice of the alleged violation and which shall be completed by the alleged violator as directed in the notice.
(3) The alleged violator shall deliver the civil penalty to the person that served the notice of the alleged violation within 30 days of service of that notice, and the person that served the notice of violation shall remit the portion of the penalty due to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Fund within 30 days of receipt of the funds from the alleged violator.
(l) The notice required to be provided to an alleged violator pursuant to subdivision (k) shall be presented as follows: (Form from this point on)
I think they might need to pay $500 per location issue the recall notice and send the form to CEH and adjust their packing to have warning labels immediately. Otherwise they will get destroyed by this legislation. I can't see a judge holding back on "unwarned nicotine exposure" considering how "evil" nicotine is at least in California
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The California litigation firm CEH (which falsely portrays itself as an environmental and consumer advocacy group) is filing extortion lawsuits against 19 California e-cig manufacturers (including 15 e-liquid manufacturers) for not posting absurd (but legally mandated) Prop 65 fear mongering warning labels (that aren't required for cigarettes, and probably not for FDA approved NRT)
CEH Initiates Legal Action on Vaping Dangers - Center for Environmental Health | Center for Environmental Health
According to the following article, CEH is the most predatory Prop 65 warning litigant, receiving $2.8 million in 2012 from 80 shakedown settlements totaling $4.1 million
CA bill targets ‘shakedown’ lawsuits
Bill targets ‘shakedown’ lawsuits | CalWatchDog
The bottom line is that every e-cig manufacturer located in CA should immediately put Prop 65 warnings on their e-cig packages (or they could be sued next, and forced to pay extortion money to CEH).
ACSH – Predatory Prop 65 lawyers threaten CA’s e-cig businesses
It had to happen: predatory Prop. 65 lawyers threaten CA
Ever since NJOY settled with then-AG Jerry Brown in 2010 (after Brown filed a retaliatory lawsuit against SE and NJOY in 2009 because they sued the FDA), EVERY e-cig manufacturer that sells e-cigs in California should have known to include a Prop 65 warnings on e-cigs sold in CA.
Interestingly, CEH only sued e-cig manufacturers located in CA, indicating that CEH's previous lawsuits against out-of-state companies (that failed to post Prop 65 warnings on their products) were NOT successful. But out-of-state e-cig companies that sell in CA should include the Prop 65 warnings to prevent CA AG Harris from suing them (just as AG Brown sued NJOY in 2009).
The reason Prop 65 doesn't apply to cigarettes is because the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling Act preempted state mandated cigarette warnings that differed from the milk toast Congressionally mandated cigarette warnings.
CEH Initiates Legal Action on Vaping Dangers - Center for Environmental Health | Center for Environmental Health
According to the following article, CEH is the most predatory Prop 65 warning litigant, receiving $2.8 million in 2012 from 80 shakedown settlements totaling $4.1 million
CA bill targets ‘shakedown’ lawsuits
Bill targets ‘shakedown’ lawsuits | CalWatchDog
The bottom line is that every e-cig manufacturer located in CA should immediately put Prop 65 warnings on their e-cig packages (or they could be sued next, and forced to pay extortion money to CEH).
ACSH – Predatory Prop 65 lawyers threaten CA’s e-cig businesses
It had to happen: predatory Prop. 65 lawyers threaten CA
Ever since NJOY settled with then-AG Jerry Brown in 2010 (after Brown filed a retaliatory lawsuit against SE and NJOY in 2009 because they sued the FDA), EVERY e-cig manufacturer that sells e-cigs in California should have known to include a Prop 65 warnings on e-cigs sold in CA.
Interestingly, CEH only sued e-cig manufacturers located in CA, indicating that CEH's previous lawsuits against out-of-state companies (that failed to post Prop 65 warnings on their products) were NOT successful. But out-of-state e-cig companies that sell in CA should include the Prop 65 warnings to prevent CA AG Harris from suing them (just as AG Brown sued NJOY in 2009).
The reason Prop 65 doesn't apply to cigarettes is because the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling Act preempted state mandated cigarette warnings that differed from the milk toast Congressionally mandated cigarette warnings.
Last edited:
Good ol' prop 65. The number one reason Californians don't read warning labels, they're EVERYWHERE! Talk about the most useless piece of legislation ever. We're going to require warnings if anything on this list is present, then we're going to make this list so long that there won't be a place in California that doesn't have traces of something on it.
"The state of CA contains chemicals known to the state of CA to cause cancer."
Yep, one day soon these swivel-eyed curtain-twitchers are going to inadvertently ban themselves
Yep, one day soon these swivel-eyed curtain-twitchers are going to inadvertently ban themselves
or.... one will see.
Warning this label contains chemicals that cause cancer in Ca.
Warning this label contains chemicals that cause cancer in Ca.
The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) is the leading national nonprofit committed to ending health threats from toxic chemicals in our air, water, food and in products we use every day. CEH protects children and families from harmful chemicals by working with communities, consumers, workers, and government to demand and support safer business practices. We also work with major industries and leaders in green business to promote healthier alternatives to toxic products and practices.
Ok, so just when are these idiots going to get the flouride and chlorine ( not to mention the other chemicals) back out of our water supply?? I find it amazing that people like this go after things that are proven to help, yet continue to turn a blind eye to the actual threats put into our food and water supply.
Ok, so just when are these idiots going to get the flouride and chlorine ( not to mention the other chemicals) back out of our water supply?? I find it amazing that people like this go after things that are proven to help, yet continue to turn a blind eye to the actual threats put into our food and water supply.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
