Defense Litigation Insider

Helping you navigate a clear path through complex litigation.

Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC: How the California Court of Appeals Has Reduced Proposition 64 (2004) to 40% Off its Intended Value

Posted in California Courts, Corporate Litigation, Professional Liability, Uncategorized

california-160550_960_720California’s Unfair Competition Law

The Legislature enacted California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”) to deter unfair business practices and protect consumers from exploitations in the marketplace. Allen v. Hyland’s Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2014) 300 F.R.D. 643, 667. Under the UCL “unfair competition” means “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act.” Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200; 17500. The Legislature initially imposed no standing requirements for private litigants to bring suit and, “[a]s a result, a private individual or entity with no relationship to the alleged wrongful practice could use the statute to force a business to repay substantial sums arguably acquired through a UCL violation.” In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 329 (dissenting opinion).

In November 2004, California voters passed Proposition 64, a ballot proposition designed to prevent “shakedown suits” brought under the UCL. In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th at 316. Lawmakers aimed Proposition 64 at “unscrupulous lawyers” who exploited the UCL’s generous standing requirement to extort money from small businesses by bringing frivolous lawsuits. Id.[1]  

Proposition 64 required that for private litigants to bring an action under the UCL the litigant must suffer an actual economic injury as a result of the unfair business practice at issue. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204. Critically, under Proposition 64, local public prosecutors can still bring UCL lawsuits without meeting the more stringent standing requirements applicable to private litigants. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204. Thus, while Proposition 64 limited private litigants’ standing to sue under the UCL, government prosecutors’ standing was in no way affected by this law. Californians For Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC (2006) 39 Cal.4th 223, 232.

The Aftermath of Proposition 64

Ever since the Legislature amended the UCL pursuant to Proposition 64, California courts have been faced with the issue of interpreting the “as a result of” language under the UCL. The California Supreme Court has opined the “as a result of” language requires that a putative plaintiff actually relies on the conduct at issue in order to have standing to sue under the UCL. In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 326. The actual reliance need not be the only cause of the plaintiff’s harm; so long as the reliance is a substantial factor in actually influencing the plaintiff’s decision, standing will lie. Id., at 326-27.

In 2016 the Court of Appeal for the Second District recognized that the “as a result of” language required “reliance on a statement for its truth and accuracy.” Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 154, 185 (citing Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 327).

Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC

The California Supreme Court will have another opportunity to further define “as a result of” under the UCL in a case which appellant Banana Republic recently filed for review. In Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC the plaintiffs alleged that they were “lured” into a Banana Republic store by a 40% off sign only to be told at the register that some of the items they chose to purchase were not subject to the sale and were full priced. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 907, 910. According to the plaintiffs, they ultimately purchased some of the items at full price, despite the fact that they were informed that the clothing they chose was not subject to the sale, because they felt “embarrassed” because lines were forming behind them. Id.

Based on the foregoing, the plaintiffs brought claims pursuant to the UCL.[2] Banana Republic moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because they did not suffer from a legally cognizable injury under the UCL as amended under Proposition 64, which the trial court granted. Veera, 6 Cal.App.5th at 911-12. In reversing the trial court’s order of summary judgment in a 2:1 decision, the Court of Appeals found a triable issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiffs actually relied on the 40% off sign to make their purchase. Id., at 919. The Court reasoned that plaintiffs’ reliance on the advertising “informed their decision to buy, which culminated in the embarrassment and frustration they felt when, as items were being rung up, they learned the discount did not apply,” thus concluding that the alleged misleading advertising was a substantial factor in causing their ultimate decision to buy. Id., at 920.

The dissenting justice, the Honorable Patricia A. Bigelow, honed in on the fact that the plaintiffs learned of the full price prior to buying the items, and that accordingly, the plaintiffs themselves were ultimately responsible for their “induced” purchases: “The only legally cognizable economic injury the plaintiffs in this case allege they suffered was the money they spent on full-priced clothes. Whether or not the store window signs were ambiguous or misleading, it is undisputed that before the plaintiffs incurred any economic injury, they learned the clothes they had selected were not 40 percent off. They then changed their purchase decisions, choosing to buy only some of the items they had selected, fully aware they were not discounted.” Veera, 6 Cal.App.5th at 924 (emphasis added). Ultimately, the dissenting justice reasoned that where a putative plaintiff “knows the true facts before consummating the transaction that causes the injury” this is, in effect, a superseding cause to any economic harm experienced by the plaintiff. Id., at 926 (emphasis added).

The Court of Appeals Diminished the Standing Requirement of the UCL

Given the purpose of Proposition 64, it seems the Court of Appeal’s interpretation and application of the UCL in Veera is a departure from the voter-chosen amendment and the Supreme Court’s interpretations of that amendment. Although protecting California’s citizens from unfair competition is a noble and necessary mission, “protecting” consumers from an action which they ultimately enter into with their eyes wide open is not consistent with the spirit of the UCL. Plaintiffs themselves broke the causal chain when they, with the knowledge that the price of the clothing was not discounted 40%, chose to proceed with the purchase anyway. Thus, the 40% off advertisement was no factor, let alone a substantial factor, in the plaintiffs’ ultimate purchasing decision.

Such a ruling, which allows plaintiffs to bring suit, despite the fact that the purchaser knew the items were full priced prior to making the purchase (i.e., prior to incurring any actual damages), is not what the Legislature, nor the voters, intended. Ultimately the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the UCL renders Proposition 64 at 60% of its intended strength, that is, 40% off its voted-for value.

We expect this case will be subject to further scrutiny by the California Supreme Court.  Hopefully, it will hear this case and, consistent with the state of the law, affirm the trial court’s ruling which granted Banana Republic’s motion for summary judgment.

[1] See also http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/01/28/calif-high-court-to-corporate-america-labels-matter/?mg=id-wsj; http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2004/general/propositions/prop64-title.htm

[2] Plaintiffs also brought causes of action under the False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500 et seq.) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.).

 

Missouri Supreme Court Extends Daimler and Says No to Forum Shopping

Posted in Commercial Litigation, Corporate Litigation, Delaware Courts, Employment Litigation, Missouri Courts

supreme-court-building-1209701_1280 On February 28, 2017, the Missouri Supreme Court joined a growing list of tribunals to apply a strict reading of the United States Supreme Court’s seminal ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). In State ex rel. Norfolk So. Ry. Co. v. Hon. Colleen Dolan, No. SC95514, the Missouri Supreme Court held that Missouri courts lack the requisite personal jurisdiction, either specific or general, over a non-resident defendant, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, in a claim brought by a non-resident plaintiff who asserted a Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA) violation arising from his employment by Norfolk Southern in the State of Indiana. The ruling marks a significant victory for corporate defendants seeking to combat forum shopping by plaintiffs, the practice of bringing cases in jurisdictions which are more likely to provide a favorable judgment or a more lucrative verdict.

The plaintiff, Indiana resident Russell Parker, argued that Missouri courts had both general and specific jurisdiction over Norfolk based on the company’s contacts with the state. Specifically, the plaintiff cited Norfolk’s ownership of approximately 400 miles of railroad track in the state, 590 employees in the state, and approximately $232,000,000 in annual revenue from the company’s operations in Missouri. As grounds for its decision, the court found that the plaintiff’s allegations did not arise from or relate to Norfolk’s activities in Missouri so as to give rise to specific jurisdiction, nor were Norfolk’s operations in the State sufficient to give rise to a Missouri court’s exercise of general jurisdiction over a defendant such as Norfolk; a company incorporated in and with principal place of business in Virginia.

Citing the Second Circuit’s decision in Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619, 627-30 (2d Cir. 2016), wherein .05 percent of the defendant’s employees and no more than .107 percent of total revenue were derived from the defendant’s activities in the state of Connecticut, the Missouri Supreme Court concluded that Norfolk’s activity in Missouri represents “a tiny portion” of the company’s business activities nationwide. Specifically, the court noted that the revenue derived from Missouri is approximately 2 percent of Norfolk’s total revenues; the tracks owned and operated in Missouri constitute approximately 2 percent of the tracks Norfolk owns and operates nationally; and the company’s Missouri-based employees account for only about 2 percent of its total employees.

The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision is particularly newsworthy for its refusal to find general personal jurisdiction based on a non-resident company’s appointment of a registered agent in the state. In its ruling, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that Norfolk’s compliance with Missouri’s mandatory business registration requirements for foreign corporations amounted to consent to the exercise of general personal jurisdiction by Missouri courts. To the contrary, the court held that as the relevant section of law provided only that registration is consent to service of process against non-resident corporations, “the registration statute does not provide an independent basis for broadening Missouri’s personal jurisdiction to include suits unrelated to the corporation’s forum activities when the usual bases for general jurisdiction are not present.” This finding echoes the recent ruling of the Delaware Supreme Court in Genuine Parts Company v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 147 n.125 (Del. 2016), which held that a broad inference of consent based on a non-resident corporation’s registration to do business in a state would allow national corporations to be sued in every state, rendering Daimler pointless.

Further, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to go along with the plaintiff’s argument that FELA itself provides an independent basis for specific jurisdiction any place that a railroad corporation has tracks. Here too, the court rejected the contention that FELA confers specific jurisdiction on the grounds that such an interpretation would turn specific jurisdiction on its head, subjecting corporations to personal jurisdiction in every state regardless of the facts of the case or the defendant corporation’s contacts with the state.

The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision adds a significant brick in the Daimler wall, bolstering the protection it provides corporations against forum shopping and excessive litigation in magnet jurisdictions. The true measure of Daimler’s longevity will, however, come next month, as the United States Supreme Court hears oral arguments on two challenges involving the application of Daimler in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. The Superior Court of San Francisco County. Stay tuned!

Recent Appellate Court Ruling Extends the Application of the Common Law Marriage Before Injury Rule to Apply in Florida’s Wrongful Death Claims

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Complex Torts, Florida Courts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability, Toxic Tort

In a 2-1 opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal continued to apply the law which bars marrying into a cause of action, but a strong dissenting opinion and noted public policy concerns could trigger further review.

In Florida, as in various other jurisdictions, the courts follow the common law marriage before injury rule. This rule requires a party to be married to the injured person prior to the time of the injury in order to assert a claim for loss of consortium – i.e. loss of companionship and support. The rationale behind this rule is that a person should be unable to marry into a cause of action. This rule has been consistently applied in personal injury cases including toxic tort and products liability cases of the “creeping” variety, such as asbestos and tobacco.

In the recent decision issued in Janis Kelly v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, et al., No. 4D15-4666 (Fla. 4th DCA February 22, 2017) the Court was asked to look at this issue in the context of a wrongful death claim. In Kelly, Plaintiffs originally filed a personal injury claim asserting causes of action for negligence, strict liability, and for Mrs. Kelly’s loss of consortium arising from Mr. Kelly’s alleged exposure to asbestos while working in construction from 1973 to 1974. Mr. and Mrs. Kelly were not married until 1976, two years after Mr. Kelly’s alleged asbestos exposure. Mr. Kelly died during the course of the litigation at which time Mrs. Kelly amended the complaint to allege a claim for wrongful death, which included a demand for loss of consortium damages. The Defendants moved to dismiss Mrs. Kelly’s claims for loss of consortium as Mr. and Mrs. Kelly were not married at the time of Mr. Kelly’s alleged injury. When the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims and the appeal followed.

On appeal, the Court addressed whether the Florida Wrongful Death Act supersedes the common law requirement that a spouse must be married to the decedent before the time of the injury to recover consortium damages. And, the Court revisited the question of whether the common-law marriage before injury rule should apply in “creeping” cases where the injury is a latent injury that does not reveal itself until after the parties marry.

On the first issue, the Court looked to the legislative intent of Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, to determine if the Act supersedes the common law of loss of consortium– i.e. did the statute unequivocally state that it changes the common law or is it so repugnant to the common law that the two cannot coexist. Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 568 So.2d 914, 918 (Fla. 1990). In applying Thornber, the Court found that the plain language of the Act clearly intended to allow for the survivors of the decedent to recover damages, including the surviving spouse to recover “consortium-type” damages. See ACandS, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So.2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1007). The Court found, however, that nothing in the Act nullifies the common law marriage before injury rule. Instead, the Court determined that the common law requirement merely limits the circumstances when damages for loss of consortium may be recovered. Ultimately, ruling that the common law marriage before injury rule can coexist with the Wrongful Death Act.

In further support of its position, the Court also looked to the legislature’s definition of the term “survivor” and the trigger for when consortium damages are recoverable under the Act. Specifically noting, the term “survivor,” is limited to a familial relationship only, and the provisions of the Act governing a survivor’s damages clearly provide that they are recoverable from the date of the injury. See §§ 768.18(1), 768.21(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2015). Based on these provisions, the Court concluded that the Act clearly anticipated the surviving spouse would have been married to the decedent prior to the date of the injury.

Lastly, in making its determination to apply the marriage before injury rule in wrongful death cases as well as personal injury claims, the Court addressed the requirement that it avoid absurd or unreasonable results. Justice Levine, in writing for the Court, notably stated “it would make no sense to allow a spouse to recover consortium damages under the Wrongful Death Act simply because his or her spouse has died when that same spouse would be prohibited from recovering the same damage under a loss of consortium claim had his or her spouse survived.” It is clear that such a ruling would create an inconsistent standard and provide for a cause of action where none previously existed.

The Court then briefly addressed the second issue related to Mrs. Kelly’s argument that the marriage before injury rule should not apply in an asbestos case where the injury is latent because there is no risk, or at least a diminished risk, of a spouse marrying into a cause of action. While acknowledging the persuasive policy reasons for superseding the common law rule, especially where the injury is latent, the Court in relying on the decision in Fullerton v. Hospital Corporation of America, 660 So.2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), declined to overrule the trial court’s order. Finding as the Court did in Fullerton, that absent a statute superseding the common-law requirement, it is required to follow the common-law rule.

Justice Taylor’s dissent focused solely on the position that the Wrongful Death Act explicitly abrogates the common-law rule. He argues that the statute was created to provide for a surviving spouse to bring a new cause of action that was not previously recognized by common law entitling them to make a claim for loss of consortium damages. And, that the legislature’s inclusion of loss of consortium damages without language limiting their recoverability based on the surviving spouse’s relationship to the decedent at the time of the injury, clearly shows intent that such damages be recoverable.

While this case provides clarity as to the application of the common-law marriage before injury rule in both personal injury and wrongful death cases, based on the dissent and noted public policy issues, this issue will most likely be addressed in the near future by the Florida Supreme Court.

WWJG Do? What Will Justice Gorsuch Do, With “All Exposures Contribute” Testimony in Toxic Tort Cases?

Posted in Litigation Trends, Products Liability, Toxic Tort

On January 31, 2017, President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although time will tell, this post assumes he will make it through the Senate confirmation process, and take his place at 1 First Street, Northeast. Currently, Judge Gorsuch sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, having been appointed to same by President George W. Bush on July 20, 2006.  While at the Tenth, Judge Gorsuch issued two interesting decisions which may prove instructive as to how he views the Court’s role as the evidentiary gatekeeper[1] of expert testimony. A discussion of those two cases, and what they foretell with regard to “all exposures contribute” testimony follows.

Graves v. Mazda Motor Corp., 2010 WL 5094286.

This case arises out of Mrs. Graves’ trip to Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Upon arriving at the Hattiesburg airport, she picked up her rental car—a Mazda 6 with an automatic transmission. At the end of her stay and while en route to the airport to depart for home, Mrs. Graves got lost and pulled over to ask for directions. When exiting the car, Mrs. Graves left the engine running but thought she had placed the car’s shifter in “park.” As it turns out, the gear shifter was in “reverse” and, when she stepped out, the car rolled backwards, knocked her to the ground, and ran her over. Mrs. Graves sought damages from Mazda for the injuries she suffered, alleging that the company’s gear shifter was defectively designed. In support of her claim, she offered expert testimony from an expert human factors engineer. The district court, however, excluded the expert’s testimony as unreliable and then, given the absence of any other probative evidence of liability, granted Mazda’s summary judgment motion. On appeal, the plaintiff sought to undo the district court’s decision.

The district court noted that the expert failed to provide any data or industry standard, or to conduct any testing to confirm his view that Mazda’s gear shift design was defective. Instead, the expert’s proffered testimony that merely described how the Mazda shifter works, and from this, his leap to the conclusion that Mazda’s design fails to allow for “smooth” shifting and so is defective and unreasonably dangerous.

Judge Gorsuch, writing for the three judge panel (Kelly, J., Ebel, J.) noted that without any reference to data suggesting how “smoothly” an ordinary consumer would expect a gear shift to move, without any confirming evidence indicating how Mazda’s design might cause shifting troubles for ordinary drivers, without any reference to how engineering standards might have counseled against Mazda’s gear shift design, and without any other evidence suggesting its reliability, the district court was right to exclude the expert’s testimony. Judge Gorsuch noted that the expert did provide a list of “safety systems analysis” techniques that, he contended, Mazda should have used in assessing its design, but even here, the expert failed to offer any evidence suggesting that Mazda actually failed to use these techniques, or if it did, that these techniques would have led Mazda to conclude that it needed to pursue a different gear shift design.

BancFirst v. Ford Motor Co., 489 Fed.Appx. 264 (2012); 2012 WL 2899053.

This case arose out of a tragic accident, in which a child darted out of an intersection and was struck by a truck. The young victim’s guardian sought to establish that the driver counter-steered (something the driver denied) in order to place responsibility for the accident with Ford and their allegedly defective brakes. The district court, however, concluded that the expert did not meet the standards for admissible expert testimony set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and because the guardian lacked any other evidence suggesting Ford’s braking system was the cause of the accident, granted summary judgment.  The guardian appealed.

Judge Gorsuch, again writing on behalf of a unanimous three judge panel (Tymkovich, J., and Baldock, J.), agreed with the district court judge who found “simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” This was especially so given the driver’s concession that when he saw the victim dart into the intersection he didn’t counter-steer to the right but instead hit the brakes and turned hard to the left, only to have the truck spin counterclockwise and causing its right rear corner to hit the child. As Judge Gorsuch noted, this was easily understandable as steering right into the skid would have required the driver to turn the wheel toward the child, making an already counter-intuitive maneuver all the more so given his desperate wish to avoid hitting her.

Attempting to bridge the gap between his opinion and the driver’s unhelpful admission, the expert pointed to police photographs showing that the wheels of the truck were turned to the right after the accident. But, as the district court noted, there was no indication when the wheels were turned to the right, before or after the accident. Moreover, the expert’s testimony that driver education courses usually teach new drivers to counter-steer out of a slide, fails to include evidence that the driver was so taught, or that drivers tend to follow this training in the heat of the moment when doing so requires them to turn, seemingly paradoxically, toward a person they are seeking to avoid. A similar problem recurs with the expert’s reference to a study which shows the driver theoretically had enough time to make the counter-steer. Judge Gorsuch found even if the study stood for such a proposition, there was still no evidence that the driver did counter-steer, or that drivers tend to do so even when it requires them to turn back in the direction of a person with whom they are about to collide. In so doing, the Court excluded the expert testimony and granted Ford’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

All Exposures Contribute Testimony

Occupational diseases such as Acute Myeloid Leukemia, Mesothelioma, Byssinosis, Silicosis and Black Lung Disease have long latency periods, and often times follow multiple sources of exposure. Typically, the only viable defendants remaining at trial are those whose products are encapsulated in materials or used in a manner unlikely to cause a sufficient dose to lead to disease. To get around this evidence, plaintiffs’ experts often opine that “every exposure,” “every exposure above background,” or “total and cumulative exposure” substantially contributes to the development of the plaintiff’s disease. Often times experts also opine that “there is no known safe level of exposure and as such all exposures must be included in attributing causation.”  How courts handle such testimony has been discussed at length in this Blog, so will not be discussed here.  See e.g., Senter, Meghan, Another Blow to “Every Exposure” in Asbestos Litigation, January 5, 2017;  Cree, Jennifer, Causation Standard at Center of PA Supreme Court Asbestos Ruling, December 6, 2016; Moore, Elizabeth, Plaintiff’s Experts Barred from Offering “Any Exposure” Theory in Asbestos Lung Cancer Case, March 10, 2015.

The Graves and BancFirst decisions authored by Judge Gorsuch, may however, give us some insight as to how a Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch would handle the issue.  For example, Judge Gorsuch will not be swayed by the exceptional credentials held by many experts espousing such testimony. As he noted in Graves, … while … we appreciate and recognize the expert’s credentials and don’t doubt the value someone in his field can bring to defective design cases, the evidence he proffered in this case rests on no more than his say so—and that isn’t good enough to require its admission. “Nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence” based on only “the ipse dixit of the expert[,]” however well qualified he may be. ..” (citation omitted).  Similarly, as he noted in BancFirst, gaps between opinion and data, will inevitably result in the court’s exclusion of the testimony, … “an expert’s scientific testimony must be based on scientific knowledge, which ‘implies a grounding in the methods and procedures of science’ based on actual knowledge, not ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation.’ (citations omitted).

Based upon the above a Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch will likely see the flawed methodology behind opinions that any exposure, no matter how slight, remote, or insignificant was a cause or substantial contributing factor to the development of disease. It appears he will be open to defendants’ arguments that such testimony is purely speculative, rests upon flawed methodology, and ultimately, cannot be said to be helpful to the trier of fact.  This will be especially so when presented with epidemiology discounting the no safe level standard, industrial hygiene evidence regarding specific products’ abilities to create exposures and the like.  If the Graves and BancFirst decisions are any indication, Justice Gorsuch takes his gatekeeper role very seriously, and will not be afraid to exclude junk science such as that referenced above.

[1] For a discussion of the court’s gatekeeper role, see Fed. R. Evid. 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

 

Does Increased Regulation of E-Cigarettes Threaten to Make the Vaping Industry Go Up in Smoke?

Posted in California Courts, Complex Torts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability

e-cigarette-1301664__340Recently, the Food and Drug Administration has regulated electronic cigarettes, making it illegal to sell e-cigarettes to anyone under 18. Similarly, California recently enacted legislation requiring a minimum purchase age of 21 for e-cigarettes.

Tobacco critic Stanton Glantz argued in favor of the minimum purchase age, stating that “There’s no question that e-cigarettes aren’t as dangerous as cigarettes are,” he says, “but they’re still dangerous.” Federal regulations have also prohibited e-cigarette retailers from providing free samples to customers and state regulations have required retailers to register and obtain a license.

E-cigarettes contain nicotine, flavoring, and a propylene glycol (a food additive classified as “generally recognized as safe” by the FDA). However, e-cigarettes do not contain tobacco, the main carcinogen in traditional cigarettes.

 

Is Vaping a Safe Way to Quit?

In contrast to the American approach, in the United Kingdom, “British health officials released what was billed as a ‘landmark review’ of electronic cigarettes. In it, e-cigarettes were described as “‘around 95 percent safer than smoking’” and “the study encouraged e-cigs to be labeled as an effective means of helping smokers curb and kick the deadly habit.”

A cutting-edge study funded by Cancer Research UK has demonstrated that if smokers completely quit smoking tobacco and switch to vaping, they will substantially reduce their intake of toxic chemicals and carcinogens. According to lead research Lion Shahab, a senior lecturer at University College London, the “study shows that bodily level exposure to established and important smoking-related carcinogens and toxicants is reduced by between 56 percent to 97 percent in long-term e-cigarette users who have stopped smoking completely, compared with tobacco cigarette smokers.”

According to Dr. Ed Stephens, senior research fellow at the University of St. Andrews, “This paper confirms the potential benefits of e-cigarettes and contributes to the growing body of evidence that the risk from chemicals in vapour is far lower than in cigarette smoke when an e-cigarette is used as the manufacturer intended.”

 

Make Vaping Great Again?

Although there is now scientific evidence that vaping represents a significantly safer alternative to smoking, regulators and anti-smoking advocates are continuing their efforts to regulate electronic cigarettes.

Given the lack of scientific consensus on the issue of the risks involved with e-cigarettes and the potential to save the lives of cigarette smokers, regulators should be encouraged not to enact any additional regulations that could decrease access to e-cigarettes and should consider reevaluating or repealing existing regulations. American regulators should adopt the “light touch” approach advocated by Cancer Research UK.

Meanwhile, some trade groups have expressed cautious optimism that the FDA will delay implementation of e-cigarette regulation in the Trump administration.

The issue continues to be hotly debated, leaving e-cigarette manufacturers, retailers, and their insurers to educate themselves regarding the applicable laws and regulations and put effective policies in place to guard against regulatory violations and lawsuits.