SB 568 would ban Internet website operators from advertising e-cigarettes to minors, don't know bill's implications

[Bill Godshall]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0551-0600/sb_568_bill_20130805_amended_asm_v94.pdf


It would be helpful if Internet website operators who sell or advertise e-cigarettes (including ECF) carefully review this legislation in California, which has already been approved by the CA Senate (back in April) and is now in the CA Assembly's Judiciary Committee.

I'm concerned that the real purpose of this bill is to harass (and/or take legal action against) Internet website operators who sell or even advertise e-cigs, tobacco, alcohol, guns and other products listed in the bill.

For example, the CA Attorney General (or other CA law enforcement agency) may hire youths to register at e-cigarette websites (and websites that sell or advertise other products listed in the bill), and could then notify the website operators that minors are registered at the website, and could then demand the website operators do various things that are stated/required in the bill.

Please remember that the CA AG sent letters to many different e-cigarette website operators (including those outside CA and even outside the US) claiming the websites were violating CA laws (and claiming that they sold e-cigs to minors, which could only have been known by the CA AG if the AG had hired and instructed the youths to try buying e-cigs at different websites). These are commonly called "sting operations".

But the language of SB 568 is very confusing.

 

[ClippinWings]

As a web developer for a major online advertising and lead generation company.....

It's confusing because it dossn't mean anything... It's unenforceable... It is also gibberish.

It states that websites cannot advertise to minors... Certain products.

It also states that the bill will not require websites to store user age information.

So, I'm not sure how a site could, technically, achieve what the bill asks them to do... Short of not advertising any of the listed items on their sites at all... To anyone.

Of particular concern would be Google AdSense and AdWords....

This Bill didn't target the advertiser... Only the owner of the website or App that displays the ad.... Crazy.

Sent from my mobile, using Tapatalk... so ignore the typos.

 

[Freckle]

Considering the provisions of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act we are lucky they just didn't say cease all online sales. Lets not start with the conspiracy theories of a government.

Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products

 

[Bill Godshall]

We are NOT "lucky they just didn't say cease all online sales," as the FSPTCA only regulates cigarettes, smokeless tobacco products, RYO and cigarette paper.

If/when the FDA proposes the "deeming" regulation (to apply Chapter IX of the FSPTCA to e-cigs) and additional regulations for e-cigarettes (as the agency had stated its intent to do since April 25, 2011), the proposed regulations almost certainly will excessively regulate (and may ban) online e-cig sales.

But this thread is about legislation proposed in California (that has no impact on and has nothing to do with the FSPTCA or the FDA).

 

[Freckle]

That is why I posted the second link. As of 2010, there were modifications to that law. The second link I posted also shows where in 2011, the term "tobacco product" DOES include e-cigarettes!


YES we are lucky they didn't say CEASE!!!!!!!


Read section 906 of the FSPTCA, it clearly outlines "face to face sales" along with marketing and advertising.

 

[sbdivemaster]

.....

So, i'm not sure how a site could, technically, achieve what the bill asks them to do... short of not advertising any of the listed items on their sites at all... To anyone.

.....

BINGO!Now I need to add a bunch of text, so that the all CAPS filter is foiled....

 

[ClippinWings]

BINGO!Now I need to add a bunch of text, so that the all CAPS filter is foiled....

But this would ban a website in the UK, or China(LOL) from advertising eCigarettes... because they can't control if a minor from CA visits.

 

[Elnroth]

But this would ban a website in the UK, or China(LOL) from advertising eCigarettes... because they can't control if a minor from CA visits.

Did you expect legislators to understand the interwebz? To them the internet is tubes, but not a truck . . .

 

[zoiDman]

I am confused as to how Advertising can be Delineated so that it is Only going to be shown to Adults?

Does this mean that if I want to place an advertisement for my e-Cigarette product on a site such as the ECF, that the ECF needs to Ensure that Only Adults can view the Ad?

???

 

[ClippinWings]

Did you expect legislators to understand the interwebz? To them the internet is tubes, but not a truck . . .

The bill seems so far reaching, I'm shocked it made it this far without someone saying "there is no way to enforce this" or "this doesn't seem possible"

I re-read it and I think what they are aiming to prevent is online forums/social networks/kid targeted sites, from displaying ads of said products... especially targeting these ads at individual children. Because it talks about targeting a specific child... It actually seems to say that a site may run said ads... so long as data pertaining to the child is randomized to prevent identification...

I don't know, the wording of this bill is a mess.(at least SB648 is pretty clear and understandable) It seems to me that it was written by someone who doesn't understand how websites and the internet work... but thinks they do.

 

[ClippinWings]

I am confused as to how Advertising can be Delineated so that it is Only going to be shown to Adults?

Does this mean that if I want to place an advertisement for my e-Cigarette product on a site such as the ECF, that the ECF needs to Ensure that Only Adults can view the Ad?

???

I see two options...

1. It can't, which would mean this bill is an attempt to ban all ecig (and other advertising deemed not suitable for children, some of which is laughable) advertising on all websites in the world.

2. Registered users of a site... which it goes into in depth.

Which is why the bill is such a mess... The way it read to me, it seems that they believe all websites have registered users and advertisers routinely use these registrations to target market... basically the "facebook model".

 

[zoiDman]

I see two options...

1. It can't, which would mean this bill bans all ecig(and other advertising deemed not suitable for children) advertising on all websites in the world.

...

So that brings up Another Question.

What is Not Suitable for Children? And Who Decides what is Suitable and what is Not Suitable?

I guess Joe Camel is Out as a product Logo.

 

[ClippinWings]

So that brings up Another Question.

What is Not Suitable for Children? And Who Decides what is Suitable and what is Not Suitable?

I guess Joe Camel is Out as a product Logo.

This Bill decides... I chose the term "not suitable for children" to describe the list of products/services covered in the bill...

It's a ponderous list:

• Alcoholic beverages
• Firearms or handguns
• Ammunition or reloaded ammunition
• Handgun safety certificates
• Aerosol container of paint that is capable of defacing property
• Etching cream that is capable of defacing property
• Any tobacco, cigarette, or cigarette papers, or .... wraps, or any other preparation of tobacco, or any other instrument or paraphernalia that is designed for the smoking or ingestion of tobacco, products prepared from tobacco, or any controlled substance
• BB device
• Dangerous fireworks
• Tanning in an ultraviolet tanning device
• Dietary supplement products containing ephedrine group alkaloids
• Tickets or shares in a lottery game
• Salvia divinorum or Salvinorin A, or any substance or material containing Salvia divinorum or Salvinorin A
• Body branding
• Permanent tattoo
• ..... paraphernalia
• Electronic cigarette
• Obscene matter
• A less lethal weapon

a few of those stand out to me as "Obviously already not marketed to children"... Tattoos, Firearms, handgun safety certificates

Others stand out in the "Seriously?!" way... Tanning, Lottery Tickets, BB device...
'BB Guns', REALLY stands out to me, because I assume this would include Airsoft... a Sport my 13yo son and I enjoy together on weekends.

 

[AgentAnia]

Totally uninforceable. If complete insanity should prevail and the bill were to pass into law, it would be struck down in court the first time anyone tried to enforce it. Surely there's at least one person in the Judiciary Committee who understands this and doesn't want California to add to its "laughingstock" stock...

(This brings to mind the French and Quebecois who wanted every website in the world to be available in French...)

 

[DC2]

That is why I posted the second link. As of 2010, there were modifications to that law. The second link I posted also shows where in 2011, the term "tobacco product" DOES include e-cigarettes!


YES we are lucky they didn't say CEASE!!!!!!!


Read section 906 of the FSPTCA, it clearly outlines "face to face sales" along with marketing and advertising.

Electronic cigarettes are NOT currently regulated as tobacco products under the FSPTCA.
And they will not be until the FDA publishes their proposed regulations, allows for a period of public comment, and then publishes final regulations.

 

[Freckle]

Electronic cigarettes are NOT currently regulated as tobacco products under the FSPTCA.
And they will not be until the FDA publishes their proposed regulations, allows for a period of public comment, and then publishes final regulations.

After the case Sottera, Inc. v. FDA, 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010) the definition of "tobacco product" was changed. Then in 2011, they added the term ecig to be more specific. Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products
As I was just saying on another post, there is a loophole though. I don't know if we could utilize it but it makes sense why there have been post requesting information on ecigs available before 2007. Any ecig that was produced before Feb 15th 2007, would NOT fall under the FDAs jurisdiction.

 

[zoiDman]

After the case Sottera, Inc. v. FDA, 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010) the definition of "tobacco product" was changed. Then in 2011, they added the term ecig to be more specific. Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products
As I was just saying on another post, there is a loophole though. I don't know if we could utilize it but it makes sense why there have been post requesting information on ecigs available before 2007. Any ecig that was produced before Feb 15th 2007, would NOT fall under the FDAs jurisdiction.

Yeah... Some of Us Know about the 2007 Grandfather Clause. But how Many e-Cigarettes does that Apply to?

 

[Freckle]

Yeah... Some of Us Know about the 2007 Grandfather Clause. But how Many e-Cigarettes does that Apply to?

Not sure, I guess that needs to be the next objective? My first ecig was the safe cig, it makes me wonder if that falls under the clause. I still have that thing... somewhere. ha ha

 

[retired1]

As a web developer for a major online advertising and lead generation company.....

It's confusing because it dossn't mean anything... It's unenforceable... It is also gibberish.

It states that websites cannot advertise to minors... Certain products.

It also states that the bill will not require websites to store user age information.

So, I'm not sure how a site could, technically, achieve what the bill asks them to do... Short of not advertising any of the listed items on their sites at all... To anyone.

Of particular concern would be Google AdSense and AdWords....

This Bill didn't target the advertiser... Only the owner of the website or App that displays the ad.... Crazy.

Sent from my mobile, using Tapatalk... so ignore the typos.

Yup. This entire thing is unenforceable. This would apply to ALL websites that have advertising, including Facebook. One of the more poorly written pieces of crap to come out of a legislative body that I've seen for some time. It's painfully obvious the ...... who wrote it are beyond technically challenged.

 

[sonicdsl]

That's enough beating down.

The fact remains that ecigs are not yet classified or regulated federally, period.

As Bill pointed out (who knows more about this stuff than all but a few), this thread's topic is about the proposed legislation in California. Any more off-topic posting after this will result in further action.