Interesting story in today's newspaper that I think has application to e-smoking.
It seems a product named Airborne swept America, purporting to be a way to stop the common cold from the very start. Just dissolve an Airborne tablet and drink a glass of medicated water. Many users swore by it. Medical authorities didn't buy it.
State attorneys general sued -- and won.
My state, Florida, has begun divvying up the $7-million settlement from the company that made Airborne. How did this happen?
Airborne made claims that it was a "cold-prevention remedy" (based on vitamin content), that it was a "sore throat remedy," a "germ fighter," and an "allergy remedy."
Prove it, the lawsuit said.
Ooops. Lots of anecdotes from happy customers meant nothing. That's not proof.
Airborne set out to obtain clinical proof of its effectiveness. That wasn't good enough. The judgment ruled that Airborne's ad claims were "not substantiated by reliable and competent scientific evidence at the time the claims were made."
Want to summarize unproven -- thus false -- claims for e-smoking:
1. Easy to quit smoking. Absolutely no study has been done. A quit-smoking claim now by any device advertiser could result in a judgment that bankrupts that company tomorrow.
2. Smoke anywhere. Not if a property owner forbids the practice. Thus the flat claim is false.
3. Healthier than tobacco cigarettes. An assumption is not proof. There have been no studies to show e-smoking is healthier than smoking tobacco cigarettes. We certainly hope so, but hope is not admissable evidence.
4. No carcinogenic substances. Provable in a court of law?
And remember from the Airborne case that any statement already made can result in a massive damage award. Remember that states, not the federal government, sued. I'd say quite a few e-smoking sellers who misrepresent their products should be shaking right about now. Only one state attorney general has the power to bring you down for your false and misleading statements.
It seems a product named Airborne swept America, purporting to be a way to stop the common cold from the very start. Just dissolve an Airborne tablet and drink a glass of medicated water. Many users swore by it. Medical authorities didn't buy it.
State attorneys general sued -- and won.
My state, Florida, has begun divvying up the $7-million settlement from the company that made Airborne. How did this happen?
Airborne made claims that it was a "cold-prevention remedy" (based on vitamin content), that it was a "sore throat remedy," a "germ fighter," and an "allergy remedy."
Prove it, the lawsuit said.
Ooops. Lots of anecdotes from happy customers meant nothing. That's not proof.
Airborne set out to obtain clinical proof of its effectiveness. That wasn't good enough. The judgment ruled that Airborne's ad claims were "not substantiated by reliable and competent scientific evidence at the time the claims were made."
Want to summarize unproven -- thus false -- claims for e-smoking:
1. Easy to quit smoking. Absolutely no study has been done. A quit-smoking claim now by any device advertiser could result in a judgment that bankrupts that company tomorrow.
2. Smoke anywhere. Not if a property owner forbids the practice. Thus the flat claim is false.
3. Healthier than tobacco cigarettes. An assumption is not proof. There have been no studies to show e-smoking is healthier than smoking tobacco cigarettes. We certainly hope so, but hope is not admissable evidence.
4. No carcinogenic substances. Provable in a court of law?
And remember from the Airborne case that any statement already made can result in a massive damage award. Remember that states, not the federal government, sued. I'd say quite a few e-smoking sellers who misrepresent their products should be shaking right about now. Only one state attorney general has the power to bring you down for your false and misleading statements.
Last edited:
.
