
Juul, Philip Morris Sued Under Racketeer Act for Targeting Kids - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-19/juul-philip-morris-sued-under-racketeer-act-for-targeting-kids
======
WheelsAtLarge
Juul had this radio campaign that was made up of 2 spots one after the other.
The 1st spot would give you the pluses of the product followed by the warnings
and how it was not for kids. The second spot would imply that what you had
heard about Juul's minuses and warnings were false. They were not blatantly
saying it but because of the way, the 2 spots were played one after the other
you certainly got the idea. It was a bit surreal. It certainly minimized the
minuses and warnings. In a way, it was brilliant since you could never prove
that they were trying to undermind the warnings but it certainly had that
effect. It's a shame they were using it to promote their products rather than
a product that is good for you.

They have some brilliant marketing people working for them.

~~~
i_feel_great
>>They have some brilliant marketing people working for them.

These people are not brilliant. They are utterly deceitful. To go along with
this shit in this day and age is utterly contemptible. Imagine all the people
and the planning and the brainstorming to come up with such a trick - how can
any of them not feel really really bad and storm out of the room?

Oh yeah, profit.

~~~
MaximumYComb
I suspect there is a lot of cognitive dissonance involved. I remember having
dinner with a developer who worked on pokie machines. He fully believed that
there was nothing wrong with the machines and that people just needed to have
self control. This is someone who's job involved programming the highly
addictive things.

~~~
toomanybeersies
A lot of people simply don't care. I've met people who've worked for casinos
and tobacco companies in management and decision making roles, and they are
fully aware that they are trying to make people addicted and maximise profit
on their habits.

I've asked them about the morality of it, and they're apathetic. It's not like
some Wolf of Wall Street attitude where they enjoy ripping people off or
making addicts, but just corporate apathy. The job pays well and they get to
enjoy the finer things in life, so why should they care?

~~~
bredren
Isn’t consumer-internet hypergrowth built around the same properties? TikTok
regularly has posts from teens describing staying up until dawn in the
infinite scroll.

------
WalterBright
My father went to high school in the 1930's, and cigarettes were called
"coffin nails" at the time.

The first thing every doctor would advise sick patients to do was quit
smoking.

Every doctor who autopsied a dead smoker could see how bad smoking was for
you. I remember seeing a smoker's lung in a jar in the 1960's. It was black
and rotten. It was terrifying.

The idea that nobody knew cigs were bad for you until the 1960's is completely
false. It was common knowledge.

~~~
cbsmith
I think you're missing the point. When the evidence started to mount, there
was an orchestrated campaign to mislead.
[https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf](https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf)

~~~
moftz
“all-synthetic aerosol to replace tobacco smoke, if necessary … I know this
sounds like a wild programme, but I’ll bet that the first company to produce a
cigarette claiming a substantial reduction in tars and nicotine … will take
the market.” (Philip Morris,1958)

It's interesting that idea is exactly what we are talking about today.

RJR tried doing smokeless cigarettes in the 80s and 90s but they apparently
tasted like a fart. They still sold them up until 2015. It seems to work
somewhat like a hookah, a hot carbon tip is used to heat air before it passes
over the tobacco. Supposedly these kinds of cigarettes were the only ones you
could still consume in the RJR office.

------
Pinckney
"IT'S NOT RICO, DAMMIT": [https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-
not-rico-...](https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-
dammit/)

~~~
ajross
That's a great blog post. But per the article, this is a RICO suit. Maybe it's
not a good one, I'm not qualified to judge. But that's the complaint. And this
industry has been successfully sued (by the DoJ) under RICO in the past, so
it's not without precedent.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
Thanks for posting this. I was interested to see what was the cause for the
tobacco companies being liable under RICO, and this article,
[https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-
toba...](https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-tobacco-
control/tobacco-control-litigation/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj) , had a
pretty good overview.

The main point seems to be that the tobacco companies _fraudulently_ covered
up what they knew about the dangers of smoking (don't know all the details but
assuming this fraudulent activity falls under one of the specific
"racketeering activity" crimes).

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but for Juul, would seem to me that it's not
enough just to call some of their products "Cool Cucumber" or whatever else
can appeal to children, but would need to point to some specific fraudulent
activity that Juul engaged in.

~~~
larkeith
IIUC, the traditional tobacco industry is disallowed from marketing to minors.
I don't know if those regulations apply to Juul, but if they do, producing
advertisements targeted at underage audiences while claiming they're for
adults might qualify.

~~~
rhizome
Looking at the Joe Camel case, it doesn't appear to have hinged on "tobacco"
per se:

"The FTC charged that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, the seller of Camel
cigarettes, promoted an addictive and dangerous product through a campaign
that was attractive to those too young to purchase cigarettes legally."

[https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/1997/05/joe-c...](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/1997/05/joe-camel-advertising-campaign-violates-federal-law-ftc-says)

~~~
justinclift
It's be interesting to see the "War on Drugs" shift to focus on (or at least
include) tobacco and related products. ;)

~~~
rhizome
It has happened in at least two instances that I can think of: Mothers Against
Drunk Driving (MADD) is now advocating for a variety of policies not always
oriented around drunk driving[1].

Second, the State of California's Department of Public Health is currently
running both an anti-vaping campaign, and a smoking cessation campaign,
without linking vaping to a reduction in tobacco smoking. In short, they have
transformed from anti-tobacco to anti-nicotine.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving#Activities_and_criticisms)

2\. [https://www.flavorshookkids.org/](https://www.flavorshookkids.org/),
[https://stillblowingsmoke.org/](https://stillblowingsmoke.org/),
[https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/Pages/Cal...](https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/Pages/CaliforniaTobaccoControlBranch.aspx)

~~~
justinclift
I was more thinking "deregister the tobacco companies and put all of their
employees in prison. With life (maybe death?) sentences for the executives and
senior management".

Just to get it in line with the treatment of other War On Drugs substances.

I mean, why should tobacco get special treatment when the other ones don't? ;)

~~~
rhizome
I've never heard of anybody suggesting tobacco nor nicotine be scheduled under
the Controlled Substances Act.

~~~
justinclift
Yeah, but it's kind of a shame. ;)

------
liability
Godspeed. These companies have proven themselves morally reprehensible time
and time again. I'd love to see serious criminal charges for the executives
though.

~~~
Pinckney
Then call your representative and tell them to pass a law that makes
e-cigarettes illegal.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
So kids go back to smoking non-e cigarettes like in the good ole days?

~~~
jakelazaroff
In recent years, teen vaping rates have increased far more than teen smoking
rates have dropped.
[https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2019/jun/12/t...](https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2019/jun/12/tim-
kaine/has-vaping-wiped-out-progress-reducing-youth-smoki/)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
That still doesn’t excuse making e-cigarettes illegal and not normal
cigarettes as well. Also, you have to compare against marijuana and other
drugs as well if we are accounting for what teens are doing to act out.

~~~
jakelazaroff
Maybe, but the point is that banning e-cigarettes won't result in all the
e-cigarette users going back to normal cigarettes. E-cigarettes have _grown_
the market, not simply captured a subset of existing smokers.

I'd also point out that the problem isn't "acting out". It's the act of
smoking cigarettes itself, which is objectively harmful. Marijuana is much
safer. E-cigarettes seem to be as well, but the jury is still out.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
There are many who have quit cigarettes that rely on e cigarettes to keep from
relapsing. Banning e-cigarettes would just screw them like crazy. As someone
who had to quit cold turkey, I can appreciate how hard this is, and how easy
relapsing is.

Even if the market is apart is partially grown, peer pressure and acting out
was going to get many of those teens on something. If it is just vaping, that
is much better than cigarettes, marijuana, heroin, meth, ... really, perfect
is still the enemy of good.

------
p1necone
The thing that get's me about Juul is that it's basically a bunch of marketing
money and visual design piled on a product that's strictly worse that the
vaping options that came before it.

The biggest thing vs a regular mech mod is that it has single use proprietary
cartridges that you have to throw out afterwards, vs spending less money on a
bottle of vape juice that will last for way longer.

~~~
krustyburger
Isn’t there a claim that Juul popularized nicotine “salts” that are more
satisfying than traditional vaping options for cigarette smokers?

~~~
burk96
As I understand it, yes. According to my friends who vape, Juul is still way
ahead of everyone in the juice department. So much better they'll spend close
to $60 a week on the stuff...

Pretty sure that's more expensive per volume than printer ink!

~~~
rhizome
Pretty close to what I was paying as a pack-a-day cigarette smoker. They're
copying the streaming TV subscription business model!

------
basseq
I see a couple different aspects here:

1\. _Targeting Kids._ I don't see the targeting. Marketing a product as
"cool"[1] is a valid tactic for the, say, 18–35 age demographic, too. Is there
a way to market to 18-year-olds _while actively dis-marketing to 17-year-
olds_? Serious question.

Anecdotally, the radio ads I hear for Juul are all testimonials from middle-
aged smokers who switched. Which is not to say that they don't have other
tactics, but this particular one can't be particularly attractive to teens.

2\. _Deceptive Marketing_. Probably more legit, but not limited to tobacco. No
marketing is going to tell you why _not_ to use their product. Now, alcohol,
nicotine, gambling, high fat/sugar foods, credit card debt, etc. should be
held to a higher standard than, say, Forever 21.

[1] I.e., "social media posts glamorizing vaping", "flavors including mango,
mint and creme brulee", "depicting the devices and those who use them as cool
and sexy". Or from a sub-linked article, "mak[ing] it look cool and sleek".

~~~
apexalpha
They target a young audience on social media.

Also, the fact that you hear the ads on the radio makes teens not the target
demographic. But here is a more in depth article:
[https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-
cigarette...](https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-cigarette-
marketing)

~~~
basseq
That's my point: of course they do (well, used to). A key demographic is
18–35. Ads portraying "happy, playful 20-something models" seems legit for
that demographic, including using social media as a channel, where that
demographic tends to be.

That young models, a sleek device, and social media is _also_ attractive to
the 13–17 demographic that Juul is being accused of illegally marketing to is
impactful, but not damning in of itself.

So that goes back to my question: is there a way to market to 18–35 and
actively _not_ market to 13–18? Let's be clear: "teens" 18–19 and people in
their early 20s _are adults_.

Otherwise, the proposed solution is not to market <35 at all... _which seems
to be exactly what Juul is doing_.[1] So then the argument is that they _used_
to, and that's good enough to cry foul.

All this comes back to "targeting". In my mind, it's very hard to draw a
distinction between targeting 18–35 that happens to be attractive to 13–18 (
_because of course it does_ ), and _targeting_ 13–18. Then, you can argue
whether incidental attraction is a "feature or a bug", and whether or not it
was part of an insidious strategy all along.

[1] "[In 2018], Juul’s ads began to look more adult and conservative... with
the slogan 'Make the switch,' the ads now feature testimonials from [people
over 35]."

------
nabla9
Tobacco industry has not changed.

In the old good times British American Tobacco had a plan to start selling
candies with nicotine so that they would get children hooked before they can
smoke. They had to abandon the plan because sometimes children eat so much
candy that they would get overdose and nicotine poisoning.

------
kregasaurusrex
It's not by accident that Juul adopted similar marketing styles of big
tobacco, the marketing and design of the products should speak for themselves
[0]. WSJ also made a video exploring this business relationship a couple
months back [1].

[0]
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3u7m6nXoAA628x?format=jpg&name=...](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3u7m6nXoAA628x?format=jpg&name=900x900)

[1] [https://www.wsj.com/video/how-juul-took-a-page-from-big-
toba...](https://www.wsj.com/video/how-juul-took-a-page-from-big-tobacco-
playbook/80048489-676D-47BC-9D6A-A2E6BE4712B9.html)

~~~
rosybox
Juul ads and the old time cigarette ads from decades ago remind me of Coca
Cola ads as well. These massive marketing budgets all take some ugly thing and
make seem like you can't have fun or be cool without it.

------
cmauniada
I was wondering what took so long. I vaguely remember seeing the very first
juul ad and I was under the impression that they might have been affiliated
with snapchat (Same vibrant color scheme etc). After finding out that they
were nicotine vapes, I was truly shocked that it was so blatantly targeted
towards teenagers.

------
parsimo2010
Australia has the right idea with cigarettes. They aren’t outlawed, but the
packaging shows decayed lungs and the marketing is very regulated.

We shouldn’t outlaw vaping, but we do need to clamp down on targeting kids
with their design and marketing. Maybe we should force all vape packages to
include information on the harmful effects of nicotine.

~~~
wpietri
Is there some reason we shouldn't outlaw vaping? People who want to quit
nicotine, or who consciously choose to become addicted to it, already have the
gum and patches. And clearly vaping is creating a lot of new addicts.

At the very best, I think we should ban all advertising and paid marketing of
addictive substances, and tax them heavily enough to provide free anti-
addiction services to anybody who wants them. The whole theory of free
markets, after all, is people making rational decisions, and the point of
addictive products is to prevent them from doing so.

~~~
kmlx
1\. i thought the idea of banning something died with the "war on drugs".

2\. alcohol and coffee are addictive substances. 88k people die from alcohol
every year: [https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-facts-and-
statistics](https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-facts-and-statistics)

3\. how about cars? 37k people die from cars every year (not including
pollution-related diseases):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year)

~~~
wpietri
As ferzul points out, we ban plenty of things just fine. Shady-looking dealers
are not selling loose asbestos and highly flammable children's pajamas on the
streetcorners.

Alcohol and caffeine are at this point culturally established, so rooting them
out is more trouble then it's worth. But we have the opportunity to stop Juul
from foisting a highly profitable new addiction on millions, so I think the
cost-benefit tradeoffs are different.

I'm entirely fine with banning private cars. Let's start by licensing and
regulating them and their owners. Then we'll just keep ratcheting up safety
requirements until the death toll is very low and most people are riding in
safer vehicles driven by competent professionals. Looking at the progress
Amsterdam has been making, I figure we can do it in 30 years if we put our
minds to it.

------
not_ai_yes_pr
Not an American nor am I familiar with american laws. I'm curious to know
whether tech companies that manipulate content to increase the time spent on
an app/device can be scrutinised under the above act? Isn't spending hours and
hours on an app/device basically an addiction?

~~~
liability
Like tobacco, it will probably take the US government several decades to react
appropriately to the threat after the harm has become clear to the scientific
community. Corporate lobbyists will fight it tooth and nail, just like they
have in the past, stalling progress by bribing immoral politicians and
confusing well meaning but stupid politicians with carefully worded bullshit.

------
JamesCoyne
Read the complaint here:
[https://docdro.id/ODq2yNC](https://docdro.id/ODq2yNC)

Count one is civil RICO. Make of that what you will.

Edit: Very similar to this: [https://www.classaction.org/media/nessmith-v-
juul-labs-et-al...](https://www.classaction.org/media/nessmith-v-juul-labs-et-
al_1.pdf)

------
magoon
Nicotine alternatives help people stop smoking, and Juul’s is the most
innovative and compelling yet. Demonize them if you will but they have helped
a lot of people’s health.

~~~
ausbah
What's better though? Helping existing smokers with Juul, or exposing a whole
new generation of kids to "cool hip smoking"?

~~~
moftz
Raising the age for tobacco is a good first step. Next is to raise prices on
traditional tobacco products and incentivize smoking cessation products like
gum and patches. Vapes can help with getting rid of the smoking part but it
can be even easier to keep using them as compared to cigarettes. The health
effects are so much less that, I'm guessing, many people stop smoking by
switching to vapes and then never stop vaping. If you remove a lot of the
obvious downsides to smoking (tar, smell, price, etc) and add in tasty
flavors, why would anyone want to quit?

------
kmlx
personally Juul is the only device that helped me quit smoking tobacco. i've
tried other vapes and none compare to how easy it is to use a Juul, and how
consistent their hits are. added bonus: i still get my nicotine, but without
the rest of the cigarette chemicals (which btw, are radioactive:
[https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactivity-
tobacco](https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactivity-tobacco)).

but this "Juul targeting children" thing is not new. i know they've been the
focus of the US gov in the past, and they enacted some changes to their
marketing (including removing some flavours and the like).

not sure what sparked this case thou, as in Europe (where i'm located) the
whole tobacco industry is tightly regulated. but we can still get our nicotine
without the government banning it (see San Francisco), although at a much
lower strength (1.8 vs 5.0 in the states). this lower strength also helped.

so I hope due to this case Juul removes all this marketing BS and simply focus
on their initial primary goal: making people drop tobacco and cigarettes.

------
vixen99
If you haven't seen it, The Insider (1999) is well worth watching. It's based
on a true story about a whistleblower in the tobacco industry. In the film the
CEO knows nicotine is addictive and perjures himself.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insider_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insider_\(film\))

------
VxfnhTAJ
I was recently on a tobacco case jury. I mentioned it to my Mom. The tobacco
companies came to her high school in the 1950s and handed out free packs of
cigarettes, 3 in each pack.

------
onlyrealcuzzo
Of course, of course. Wait to sue them for $2 a customer until they've
acquired the customers with a LTV of $30k for only $50. That'll teach 'em.

------
ahupp
A complication to the whole story about the risks of vaping is that nicotine
alone doesn't appear to be particularly addictive. The evidence suggests that
it's specifically the combination of MAOI and nicotine found in tobacco that's
actually so addictive:

[https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine#addictiveness](https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine#addictiveness)

~~~
kristofferR
Yeah, that's my experience too.

I vaped a lot, lost my vape and didn't buy a new one. The period afterwards,
with no vape/nicotine, was completely unproblematic, I had no issues quitting
at all.

------
quickthrower2
[https://outline.com/uHgUPZ](https://outline.com/uHgUPZ)

------
3xblah
[https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/class-action-lawsuit-filed-
against-...](https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-juul-
and-altriaphilip-morris-builds-past-litigation-against-big-tobacco)

~~~
Pinckney
Someone linked the complaint in the comments below.

~~~
3xblah
The complaint looks remarkably similar to the Nessmith complaint in Florida.

[https://www.classaction.org/media/nessmith-v-juul-labs-et-
al...](https://www.classaction.org/media/nessmith-v-juul-labs-et-al_1.pdf)

------
transfire
Only a matter of time before they go after Cheeseburgers and Cola.

And the consequences... It's isn't safer product. It's price hikes, less
choice and higher taxes -- and a few extra parasites making bank.

------
linuxdude314
He should have also sued Pax Labs, the company that spun Juul out (likely for
this very reason) when it was still getting off the ground as R&D.

This structure was definitely chosen to protect Pax Labs.

------
ptah
the biggest medical advance in 20th century by impact is getting doctors to
tell patients to quit smoking. i'm not sure why vaping is even legal when
there are less harmful drugs that are illegal

------
cookieswumchorr
when I get old, i will tell my pot-smoking grandkids how there was a time whe
tobacco wal legal, and they won't believe me

------
seattlebarley
Speaking as someone who started using a Juul at 17, this is absolutely
ridiculous. People are responsible for what they choose to consume. Got
asthma? Maybe avoid inhaling chemicals that might affect your condition. Now,
I'm 19 and I have to drive to North Carolina (about 30 minutes) to even buy
tobacco products, since they raised the legal age to 21 in Virginia. Thanks,
nanny. I really hope this little prick goes home empty handed.

~~~
jackvalentine
> People are responsible for what they choose to consume.

People are influenced by advertising. Especially those under the age of 25
such as yourself where the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain that
involved with decision making) is usually not completely developed yet.

"People are responsible for what they choose to consume" only takes you so far
when people's ability to decide what to consume is shaped by their peers, the
advertising they see and ten million other factors in their life. I remember
thinking the way you do... and then I grew up and realised people are
infinitely more complex than I had given thought to.

~~~
Smithalicious
Don't you see how extremely patronizing it is to say, essentially, "you can't
make your own decisions, your brain isn't fully developed"? I get that this is
occasionally necessary to say to actual kids, but it does not seem appropriate
to say to anyone we deem capable enough to vote and drive a car.

~~~
__s
They even add on the old "I was like you, then I changed, so obviously you too
may one day be so fortunate as to advance into being like me"

~~~
jackvalentine
It's true, shrug. I distinctly remember thinking "Why don't other people make
the right decisions?".

I'll admit including it is patronising and in itself immature. Maybe this is
my "Why don't people realise that other people are complex beings?" moment and
in another dozen years I'll be chiding my past self again!

------
jonballant
I have never understood the attraction to juul's but the majority of
individuals who I know who use them are all young adults and it is alarming
that it is so simple for them to have access to this product.

~~~
EpicEng
I started smoking cigarettes at 9 and was able to consistently get my hands on
them by 14. It's never been hard.

~~~
diveloper
Damn, and despite this, you're posting on HackerNews. I wanna hear your life
story.

~~~
EpicEng
Ha, it had some twists and turns. Smoking was maybe the most innocent part of
my high school experience.

------
cat199
tinfoil:

1) false flag lawsuit directly planted by big tobacco

2) who will claim "hey it wasn't a tobacco product so our previous lawsuits
didn't apply",

3) thus creating public outrage (think of the children) about this
classification

4) leading to broad stroke regulation of vaping e.g. expensive certifications,
etc, which will

5) quash the small time vape industry which in turn

6) benefits the tobacco companies.. who will

7) pay a pittance in fines to

8) regain marketshare in the vaping market and

9) profit!

------
iamleppert
I have a great idea for a vape that, instead of a heating element, uses a high
power laser to heat the oil. In this way there is no byproduct from the
heating of the coil in the vapor.

~~~
liability
Maybe a better invention would be a device that fires a high-power laser beam
directly into the eyes of anybody who tries to 'innovate' in the addictive
substance industry.

~~~
Smithalicious
Virtually anything that is enjoyable is potentially addictive. Trying to
police the "addictive substances industry" will very quickly turn you into the
fun police.

~~~
liability
Do I get a badge?

------
cybersnowflake
Anybody dumb enough to still think cigarettes are good for you these days
can't be helped. Its not big bad tobacco's fault.

And obviously they want to minimize negatively advertising themselves, thats
what companies do. You can only expect them to sabotage their sales so far.
But I have seen no evidence that they are purposefully marketing to kids. It'd
be pretty dumb to seeing all the trouble and negative attention even the whiff
of being accused of doing so is bringing. Hollywood even these days when they
are selfconscious about it is still probably doing more to promote the image
of smoking. Heck when's the last time you've even seen an add for regular cigs
period?

If you think smoking should be outlawed go ahead and outlaw smoking. Otherwise
how much further do you expect the companies to go? Wire their packs to give
people electric shocks?

~~~
ng12
Flavored cigarettes are banned on the presumption that they disproportionately
appeal to kids. Why would flavored vaporizers be treated differently?

~~~
Pinckney
Regardless of whether or not they should be treated differently, the
regulations as they stand now _do_ treat them differently. If you don't like
that, the solution is to change that, not to creatively interpret "wire fraud"
to mean anything a jury decides is bad.

