Christopher Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 http://www.pr-inside.com/electronic-cigarette-seller-sued-r1452385.htm Ouch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorisatoIncorporated Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Seems ASH is really trying to make it tough to get liquid and have now made a bad claim about the PG in the liquid. Why don't dumba** people know the difference between PG and DG ? I've yet to find antifreeze in my liquids :P "Quote from the article" PayPal was also warned that: "As the FDA and others have noted, electronic cigarettes pose a wide variety of potential dangers to users, and perhaps also to those around them, both of whom inhale a mixture of nicotine (a dangerous drug) and propylene glycol (which is used in antifreeze and may cause respiratory tract irritation In response, PayPal is no longer facilitating the sale of this product. Facebook has reportedly decided that "we do not allow ads for electronic cigarettes and will not allow the creation of any further Facebook Ads for this product." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarateLobster Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 "telling listeners to the Howard Stern radio show that "for kids out there, you still look cool 'cause it still looks like a cigarette."" I REALLY hope that's not a fact. If it is then whoever is in the SE marketing department, or was part of that show, should be fired and possibly beaten with a rabid badger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaceyUnderall Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Apparently, it wasn't SE who made that comment about looking cool, it was Artie someone... sorry his last name escapes me as I don't have XM. Also, another thing to note is that XM is a paid subscription so IF kids are listening to Howard Stern, then their parents are letting them. The other interesting thing about this PR is that they deliberately left out pertinent information: Where it was filed? By whom? This was all in an attempt to make it look like consumers were suing SE when in fact it appears that the only suit on the table is from the AG's office in Oregon. So... this was ouch a few weeks ago. They are just putting it out there a different way to make it look worse than it really is. Typical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now