Big T Wins Ecig Court Case
Big Tobacco successfully fended off a potentially devastating lawsuit this week.
-
by Dave Cross
Share on:
A class action lawsuit involves a group of people with an identical or similar complaint caused by the same product. Instead of multiple similar cases being brought to court, the entire group sues a defendant. In this case, a suit was filed by plaintiffs in New York, Illinois and California against a group of tobacco companies (including Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Reynolds American Inc.). The claim was that the companies had “deceptively advertised” the health benefits of cigalike electronic cigarette products over traditional tobacco cigarettes.
The Judge decided that federal law (the one applying to the whole of the USA) takes precedence over any legislation enacted by individual states. In this case, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act states that companies just have to print a warning on the product packaging about nicotine being addictive. The States that have demanded more comprehensive labels will be unable to enforce them.
In addition, the judge said that the claim “makes no adequate allegation about any substances other than formaldehyde or acetaldehyde. The single passing reference to ‘high concentrations of ultrafine particles,’ is far too cursory to state a plausible independent claim under the UCL and CLRA for fraudulent omissions or failure to disclose.”
But this statement opened up a new avenue of attack for the plaintiffs. Leave to amend the complaint has been made providing adequate facts can be stated to allow a claim under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, known as Prop 65. And amend it they will.
As an article detailing the background to the case writes: “The combination of a booming industry, lack of information, concerns about long-term effects on youth and Reynolds Vapor Co. deep pockets was bound to cause enterprising mass tort lawyers to sue under Proposition 65.”
Pursuing a case under the proposition means detailing what toxins they are looking for – something that will no doubt lead to a sudden release of research papers condemning vaping. The National Law Review states: “Despite the dismissal of seven counts in this class action suit, the remaining cause of action is likely to result in discovery of previously unknown chemicals in the e-cigarette fumes and liquids—perhaps resulting in additional lawsuits.”
Dave Cross
Journalist at POTVDave is a freelance writer; with articles on music, motorbikes, football, pop-science, vaping and tobacco harm reduction in Sounds, Melody Maker, UBG, AWoL, Bike, When Saturday Comes, Vape News Magazine, and syndicated across the Johnston Press group. He was published in an anthology of “Greatest Football Writing”, but still believes this was a mistake. Dave contributes sketches to comedy shows and used to co-host a radio sketch show. He’s worked with numerous start-ups to develop content for their websites.
Join the discussion
Parliament Fears Two
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs faced questions from a Conservative MP and, oddly, a member of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
-
by Dave Cross
Harm Reduction For The Rich
The United Kingdom risks becoming a harm reduction country only for the wealthy, according to Michael Landl of the World Vapers’ Alliance
-
by Dave Cross
Sacrificing Health For 2p Cut
Tory Government alienates vaping voters with its mission to cut tax by an unaffordable 2p to attract voters by placing a tax on vape products in the forthcoming budget
-
by Dave Cross
Scotland Announces Single-Use Vape Action
A ban on the sale and supply of single-use vapes in Scotland is due to come into effect on 1 April 2025, under proposed legislation published today
-
by Dave Cross
-listing400.jpg)
