States Will Investigate Juul’s Marketing to Teens

A coalition of 39 states will look into the marketing and sales of vaping products by Juul Labs, including whether the company targeted youths and made misleading claims about nicotine content in its devices, officials said Tuesday.  Go here for more details.

News about vaping products keep piling up

Here are a few bits of news related to vaping:

The American Medical Association has called for an immediate ban on all electronic cigarettes and vaping devices.

Yet another complaint has been filed against the manufacturer of vaping products.  In this one, an 11-year old child alleges to have developed a nicotine addiction from JUUL, indicating that the manufacturer’s aggressive marketing practices not caused vaping problems among high school and middle school students, but also ensnared children still in elementary school.  The story is here.

A new study suggests that JUUL products deliver much higher amounts of nicotine than other e-cigarettes, increasing the risk of addiction and other health problems.  Story here.

California sues JUUL Labs

California and the city of Los Angeles sued e-cigarette maker Juul Labs on Monday, claiming the company caused a public health crisis by targeting teens with fruity, fun flavored vaping products and did not verify the age of its customers for online sales.  Here is the full story.  Bloomberg law podcast has a 7 minute comment on the claim here.

More news on vaping: Trump flip flops on regulation of vaping products

At some point earlier this fall, President Trump announced he was going to look into ways to keep vaping products away from teenagers and even stated his administration would ban most flavored e-cigarettes.  Of course, as is so often the case, he was only pretending to know what he was talking about and now that someone told him that such a move might cost him some votes, the plan is off the table.  You can now add that to the growing list of Trump's unfulfilled promises.  More on the story here.

More news related to JUUL nicotine products

In a complaint filed earlier this month in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, 20 year-old Wayne Childs, Jr. argues that he and potentially millions of other young adults and teens in the United States were victims of an “orchestrated effort” by the makers of JUUL, which has resulted in widespread “JUULing” addictions due to high levels of nicotine delivered by the e-cigarettes.  That story is here.

Meanwhile, the U.S. District Judge recently appointed to preside over all federal JUUL addiction lawsuits has indicated that he intends to move the litigation forward in a quick and efficient manner, given the urgency and gravity of the significant public health concerns that are raised in the cases.  That story is here.

Finally, here is a story about a different type of lawsuit the manufacturers are now facing: "The makers of JUUL e-cigarettes face a growing number of nicotine addiction lawsuits, not just from teens and parents, but also from school districts that have become the “front line” in a battle against the growing teen vaping epidemic in the United States.  Over the last month, several districts nationwide have filed JUUL lawsuits, alleging that the manufacturer’s marketing tactics specifically targeted teens, resulting in widespread underage nicotine addiction."  You can read that story here.

Another lawsuit against the makers of JUUL vaping products

Yesterday I reported on a class action filed against the manufacturers of JUUL vaping products.  Today, there is news of another lawsuit, this one an individual product liability claim brought by a 19 year old in Colorado.  Go here for a copy of the complaint.  Go here for more general information on the case.

Class action filed against manufacturers of JUUL vaping products

AboutLawsuits is reporting that a complaint was filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee against the makers of JUUL vaping products arguing that the defendants intentionally exploited teens to create a new generation of nicotine-addicted customers.

Go here for a copy of the complaint.

Podcast on e-cigarettes, vaping claims, and regulation

Yesterday I posted a note about a new case filed against the manufacturer of a popular e-cigarette product.

Here is a link to a podcast on Ringler Radio in which hosts Larry Cohen and Ford Swift talk with attorney Joseph VanZandt about claims of false and deceptive sales, marketing, and labeling against JUUL, and the failure to warn of the products’ highly addictive levels of nicotine, all targeting young people.

New lawsuit filed arguing injuries caused by "vaping"

An 18-year-old from Illinois has filed a product liability lawsuit against the makers of JUUL (a "vaping" device) arguing that the side effects of vaping caused a respiratory injury, which has left the teen with the lungs of a 70 year old man.  This appears to be one of the first lawsuits filed claiming injuries caused by vaping.  AboutLawusuits has a little more information here.

American Museum of Tort Law, interview with Ralph Nader (video)

Earlier this year the American Museum of Tort Law opened its doors in Connecticut.  Here is a short introduction by Ralph Nader:

US abandons legal battle over cigarette warnings

After a series of setbacks in federal court, the U.S. government is abandoning a legal battle to require that cigarette packs carry a set of large and graphic warning labels depicting the dangers of smoking and encouraging smokers to quit.  For all the background information go here.  For the most recent information you can go to Reuters, The First Amendment Center, Legal Newsline, the Washington Legal Foundation and Public Citizen.

Court will not grant rehearing on cigarette warnings case

I have been following the litigation related to the constitutionality of the government regulations on cigarette warnings.  See here for the most recent post and here (and scroll down for all the rest).  Here is the latest:  AP reported yesterday that the court of appeals denied the federal government's request to reconsider the decision that declared the regulation unconstitutional.  As you recall, the regulation requires tobacco companies to put large graphic health warnings on cigarette packages to show that smoking can disfigure and even kill people.  It is fair to assume the case is working its way to the Supreme Court.  Go here for the AP story and here for short report (with links) at The Jurist.

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules regulation imposing graphic cigarette warnings is unconstitutional -- UPDATED

As you may recall, I have been following the developments in the litigation over the constitutionality of the proposed new graphic warnings for cigarettes.  Go here and scroll down for all the previous posts on the subject.  The most recent development came in today as news spread that a panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found (on a 2 to 1 vote) that the regulation imposing the warnings is unconstitutional.  Go here for a copy of the opinion.  For more news and commentary go to The Blog of the Legal Times, The New York Times (here and here), The Jurist, Drug and Device blog, The Wall Street Journal law blog, Public Citizen, and The First Amendment Center.

UPDATE 8/27/12:  Here are two more links with more discussion (and links) on the case:  Circuit Splits, FDA law blog and Jonathan Turley.

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules regulation imposing graphic cigarette warnings is unconstitutional

As you may recall, I have been following the developments in the litigation over the constitutionality of the proposed new graphic warnings for cigarettes.  Go here and scroll down for all the previous posts on the subject.  The most recent development came in today as news spread that a panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found (on a 2 to 1 vote) that the regulation imposing the warnings is unconstitutional.  Go here for a copy of the opinion.  For more news and commentary go to The Blog of the Legal Times, The New York Times (here and here), The Jurist, Drug and Device blog, The Wall Street Journal law blog, Public Citizen, and The First Amendment Center.

Austalia's approach to cigarette package warnings

As you may recall, I have been following the debate and litigation on the constitutionality of the regulations that require cigarette manufacturers to place graphic images as part of the required warnings in cigarette packages.  Go here and scroll down for all the posts on the subject.  Interestingly, the Australian courts have been considering the same issue and the High Court of Australia recently upheld a law that requires cigarette packages to display graphic images warning of the dangers of smoking and bans brand logos. For more information go Jurist, Public Citizen, and The Huffington Post.

Update on the litigation related to the new regulations on cigarette warnings

Next Tuesday, the federal appeals court in Washington will hear arguments on two related rulings by a Federal District Court judge, Richard Leon, blocking implementation of the new labeling plan. As reported by the Newy York Times, Judge Leon concluded that the government’s prominent use of emotionally charged images “calculated to provoke the viewer to quit” smoking crossed a line. They went from conveying uncontroversial factual information, he said, to compelling tobacco firms to advance the government’s “obvious anti-smoking agenda” in violation of their free speech rights.

The New York Times has published an article criticizing the lower court's opinion and arguing for its reversal.  It starts by stating that "[t]he tobacco industry has never been bashful about fighting back against attempts to regulate the promotion of its deadly, addictive products. The latest is an effort to derail new regulations requiring large health warnings on cigarette packages by making baseless First Amendment claims"  It ends by arguing that reversing the lower courts ruling "should be an easy call."

The Blog of the Legal Times has more on the story.  For all my previous posts on this subject go here (where the posts are in reverse chronological order.)

Decisions on the constitutionality of the cigarette warnings regulations might be headed to Supreme Court

A few days ago I reported on two recent decisions on the constitutionality of the regulations that require cigarette manufacturers to place graphic images as part of the required warnings in cigarette packages.  (see here and here).  Circuit Splits is reporting today that the issue might be headed to the Supreme Court soon.  Go here for the article.

Comments on the recent decisions on the constitutionality of the cigarette warnings regulations -- UPDATED

Three days ago I reported on two recent decisions on the constitutionality of the regulations that require cigarette manufacturers to place graphic images as part of the required warnings in cigarette packages.  Professor Jonathan Turley has a detailed comment on the topic here.

UPDATE (March 22): The FDA Law Blog has posted its analysis of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 6h Circuit here.

Comments on the recent decisions on the constitutionality of the cigarette warnings regulations

Two days ago I reported on two recent decisions on the constitutionality of the regulations that require cigarette manufacturers to place graphic images as part of the required warnings in cigarette packages (here).  Professor Jonathan Turley has a detailed comment on the topic here.

The FDA Law Blog has posted its analysis of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 6h Circuit here.

Court of Appeals for 6th Circuit upholds regulation requiring new graphic warnings for cigarettes -- UPDATED

We have been following the developing saga of the FDA's attempt to impose new warning labels on cigarette packages that include graphic images.  See (in chronological order) here, here, here, here, here and here.  The last report was that a federal district court in Washingon DC declared the regulations unconstitutional. 

Today, however, the Wall Street Journal law blog is reporting that a federal appeals court in Cincinnati has upheld the portion of the regulations that requires that large graphic warnings comprise the top 50% of the front and back of cigarette packs.  Go here for a copy of the opinion.  According to the report, the Court held that the labels “serve as disclaimers to the public regarding the incontestable health consequences of using tobacco” and do not unconstitutionally restrict tobacco companies’ speech. 

UPDATE (March 21): Professor Jonathan Turley has a detailed comment on the topic here.