Juul Shipped At Least 1M Contaminated Pods, New Lawsuit Says
buzzfeednews.com
buzzfeednews.com
I really wish the article detailed what exactly the contaminant is, especially considering the current hysteria over vaping.
>That same day, Breja “protested Juul’s refusal to issue a product recall for the contaminated pods, or at a minimum issue a public health and safety notice to consumers.” Then-chief finance officer Tim Danaher reportedly “questioned his financial acumen,” since these suggestions would lead to billions of dollars in lost sales and hurt Juul’s then-$38 billion valuation, according to the lawsuit. Danaher, whose departure was announced by the company on Tuesday, allegedly told Breja that he should remember his loyalty to Juul.
It's sad that there are so many people who would knowingly cause harm to others, just all for the opportunity to make just a little bit more money. They were already making money, and I'm pretty sure this debacle will cost them far more money in the long run than just doing a voluntary recall and coming clean. No better than the tobacco companies that came decades before.
I can’t believe people are this gullible. They are the tobacco companies. Juul is owned by Phillip Morris and all of that nicotine liquid comes from the same tobacco.
A lot of vapers were upset about this, but I hoped it would allow Juul to get some of that sweet regulatory capture. It’s a fantastic device for smokers who were disappointed by the vape pens that preceded it. (i.e. Me)
You should also compare the advertising Juul did before and after the Altria deal. Before they suspended all ads, it was nothing but 40- and 50-somethings talking about the switch use-case. Before, the ads were hip and trying to appeal to the younger crowd.
For a long-time big tobacco saw vaping as a threat to their business, they worked and probably still work to have it banned.
When you vape you are using tobacco. Selling vape liquid is selling tobacco. It’s not competitive in any sense, it is a new brand for the same product. Why are the addicts so unwilling to recognize that?
People figured out that you could heat up a solution of pure nicotine and glycerins to create a mist that is easily absorbed when inhaled (but didn't include the tars, carbon monoxide, or the host of other byproducts of combustion that lead to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases).
Obviously it's not as ideal as breathing nothing but pure, Spaceballs-style "Perri-air" but it's like telling someone not to bother with a massive harm reduction because it doesn't eliminate 100% of potential health risks.
So while the nicotine is likely derived from tobacco (just because it's the easiest source), using a nicotine mist inhaler is hardly the same as inhaling the smoke of burning tobacco.
What started out mainly in the realm of tinkerers and curious people looking for a better way to wean off nicotine or minimize the health risks of smoking has been co-opted (at least as far as the mainstream discussion goes) by cig companies and those who would seek to become their successors.
That’s what they are. I smoked from age 18 to 27 and I was fully aware that my physical and psychological reaction to withdrawal made me an addict.
The concept that vaping is safer is an assumption. Everyone assumed that smoking had no health risks until people started to study the effects of decades of use. The first vaporizers for nicotine arrived in 2006 so there is no possible way to know the full long-term effects of vaping. Assuming that it is safer is just as reasonable as assuming that it is less so.
> the nicotine is likely derived from tobacco
It absolutely is in 100% of vape liquids.
The delusion is palpable and the mental gymnastics that serve only the addiction are disturbing. As Dostoevsky said, ”The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him...”
It began as a safer alternative to smoking, which was an assumption. The science isn't concrete but there is some evidence vaping is safer than smoking. Note safer and not safe.
It's also easier to quit cigarettes by switching to vaping and then gradually lowing the nicotine until you're vaping liquids with no nicotine. Then it's just the habit you have to beat the addiction to and not the nicotine.
It is a little difficult to switch from smoking to vaping as cigarettes are engineered to be as addictive as possible. There are more addictive chemicals in cigarettes than just nicotine, and some added chemicals to make the nicotine in cigarettes more addictive than plain old nicotine. Cigarettes are engineered for an instant hit that fades quickly. The hit from vaping is slow and steady. It takes time to adjust to vaping and there are cravings until you do.
I think something has to be done about non-smokers taking up vaping without stopping smokers from switching to vaping, I don't know what. There's an argument the non-smokers who take up vaping would probably take up smoking if vaping didn't exist.
There are vape liquids without nicotine.
this is sorta unfair, imo. their advertising practices may be sketchy but the product itself is quite innovative. even today, I don't know of any vape products on the market that give as good of a user experience in such a small form factor.
I’m curious if their MFG line is cGMP compliant. It may be, but bad batches would say procedure Sops etc were either not in effect, not available or ignored.
This is why we are where we are with the state of Earth's health.
> Danaher....allegedly told Breja that he should remember his loyalty to Juul
What's with all this cult behavior? I'll never understand it. It reminds of frat culture.
We are in many ways still tribal primitives with advanced technology.
I can't even understand why you wouldn't abandon all Juul products at this point.
The highest pg/vg liquid most people can tolerate is 18 mg. Typically if someone is using a smoking device that has the large clouds, they are only using 6 or 3 mg concentrate. The issue with high nicotine concentrate in the pg/vg liquid is the taste is very bad with high mg of nicotine.
Now the tiny pods people smoke out of, do not have as large of clouds, however with the new type of salt-based liquid, you can smoke 25-50 mg and still have a pleasant taste to it.
This is why anyone smoking the salt based liquid seems to have these fiendish kinds of buzz.
Me personally, I started 4 years ago on 18 mg, after one year went to 12 mg, then 6 mg, now I'm on 3 mg. I plan on ripping the band-aid off soon and quitting cold turkey now that I've weened myself down. I am waiting for this upcoming holiday season to take a few days off, isolate myself from work and be a crappy asshole to myself for a bit and then be free of this stupid habit I picked up. (I used to smoke a pack a day or more starting when I was 18 before I transitioned to vaping)
Tl:Dr - Salt based liquids are like a shot of nicotine vs a beer when you compare the concentration of the nicotine.
2 weeks before I pull the trigger and throw everything into the garbage (that is the plan because I agree the temptation would be probably too great), I plan on trying to only vape outside like I would have to with normal cigarettes. This is to detach my habits of also sitting at the computer desk and taking vape hits whenever I want. This would force me to want it bad enough to put on a jacket and physically go outside to smoke it.
Where I live we just got our first snow yesterday, so going outside is not exactly pleasant, and I'm hoping that when I do pull the trigger and quit at the end of the month it will easier if I've already weened myself off of vaping at my desk or other areas inside of the house I've grown too comfortable vaping in.
Apparently, there's evidence that nicotine reinforces habit formation, so that could be why.
That's sounds like a lot. My point of reference is nicotine gum, they are 2-4mg a piece, and the packaging says you are supposed to chew it slowly over 20-30 minutes.
If you have no resistance, 2mg can be enough to create a "buzz".
Cursory Google turns up a pretty wide range of nicotine content for a cigarette.
So 50mg/ml nicotine salt is 'equivalent' in concentration to ~27mg/ml nicotine freebase and likewise 25ml/ml is 'only' as strong as 13.5ml/ml nicotine freebase. You also inhale a LOT less from salt vapes typically compared to traditional vapes. Prior to the popularity of nicotine salts, I remember having friends who switch from cigarettes needing high concentrations; ~20mg/ml nicotine freebase which has a intense throat hit.
I didn't realize the nicotine itself is what was different, and would explain how there are sub ohm salts now that only contain 3/6 mg/60 ml.
I did notice when I tried the Salt pods my friend had that were 25/50 that it did give me an intense head buzz, pretty much like smoking a cigarette for the first time. I think that inhaling less vapor is also beneficial in pods vs the sub ohm, and if I wasn't planning on quitting at the end of the month I probably would switch to the pods as it would be easier to smoke in public without annoying/drawing attention to yourself like with the sub ohm mods.
The liquid in Juul pods is actually 59mg/ml. There's 0.7ml of the stuff in there, so the total pod nicotine content is about 41mg.
With roughly 200 puffs per pod, that comes out to 0.2mg per puff.
From an egotistical customer perspective Juul knowingly selling tainted vials is relevant while Uber isn't.
I've been trying to use 0 nic pods but they don't hit your throat at all so it's really not got the effect I need. The flavors great but it's the equivalent of eating dessert and blowing sweet air out of your mouth afterwards.
To add even more pain to this I'm sitting here smoking mint pods which are what this articles about..
edit: I grabbed a Caliburn, if anyone is having a hard time finding lower mg nic salts I found that www.cloudberryvapors.com will make them to any of your specifications. I went with 12mg and got a sampler pack.
Why are we not stopping cigarettes from being shipped around the U.S. immediately under these exact same concerns?
The problem isn't the vice itself, it is the demand for the vice.
There isn't yet a huge vape smuggling industry anywhere. Also, if banning vapes helps reduce the rate at which it is getting trendy among teenagers then I fully support it.
For one, cigarettes are not considered cool anymore, and will meet their inevitable death soon. Second, cigarettes can't be banned, because addicts will be forced into smuggling or moving to harder stuff. Third, Cigarettes have a ready smuggling industry that will take over, the second they are banned.
The analogy would be like leaving a bad marriage. It is a lot easier to divorce someone who will amiably accept than an extremely abusive partner where dissent puts your health at risk. Cigarettes are the abusive partner.
Banning cigarettes would be prohibition all over again. The vape ban has not been as bad of a disaster yet, so I can see why the govt. would want to continue with it.
It's typically nicotine, VG/PG (essentially glycerines like you'd use in a fog machine, but medical/food grade), and often a small amount of food flavoring concentrate suspended in the same VG or PG base.
I quit smoking with this stuff and eventually dropped off the nicotine. I made my own liquid because I could source the ingredients myself, control how much nicotine I used, and knew exactly what I was puffing on...something I couldn't say when I still smoked.
Yes, because prohibitions have always worked out marvelously, the list of bad things kids get into is small, and won't someone please think of the children?!
If you're all for banning dangerous things that adults enjoy which we also prohibit children from doing, you're list is going to grow quite long.
In many countries cigarette companies are not allowed to advertise as trendy or cool. Their packages are forced to contain photos of people affected by lung cancer and big signs saying the same. It really does help make smoking appear uncool.
Juul and vaping companies have gone around unchecked in this regard. Even if the ban is reserved I would be a huge supporter of such adversarial marketing restrictions.
> and won't someone please think of the children
Adults have way better impulse control. Thinking about the children is a legitimate concern, when talking about things with massive doses of nicotine.
> list is going to grow quite long.
If the world worked the way I wanted and laws had 100% efficacy, alcohol would be banned too. But, alas it is so deeply ingrained into our collective social psyche that it is going nowhere.
Apart from alcohol and pot, what adult thing can't minors enjoy ? That's the list.
And in the meantime, how many adults have you harmed by taking away an effective smoking cessation device in some naive attempt to protect children from a threat that you can't even quantify?
Treat them like cigarette companies when it comes to advertising, I'm all for that, but don't take away flavors or ban them outright out of fear.
>when talking about things with massive doses of nicotine
No one is dying from nicotine.
>f the world worked the way I wanted and laws had 100% efficacy, alcohol would be banned too. But, alas it is so deeply ingrained into our collective social psyche that it is going nowhere.
Jesus.
Note: I'm not arguing that those specific chemicals were found in the vape liquid, just an example of something I would not expect to find in a traditional cigarette.
Money and greed goes hand in hand and it deludes your moral compass.
If you instead are driven by true happiness which can come in many forms such as doing good, impacting people in a positive way or just improving the world in general, money becomes less important.
I do understand this way of thinking is a luxury and I myself had been in situations where I just needed money to buy food, but the people sitting in these positions, making these decisions usually have no issue with money, they just want more.
If you want something harmful to ban, why don't you start with products with a nicotine level above 24 mg/ml. Better yet, why don't you REQUIRE them to be made available in a variety of lower nicotine concentrations, including nicotine-free. Giving the user control over the nicotine content is the primary value of vaping for smoking cessation. There is a legitimate public health interest in requiring products to be useful for this purpose.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/04/e-cigarettes-may-be-conta...
The only reason to not call out brands is you're afraid of their lawyers or you have an agenda.
This story has been updated to include a response from Juul, a link to the lawsuit itself, and a clarification that the lawsuit did not specify which contaminant was allegedly in the pods.
For example:
They created flavors clearly designed for non-smokers
They took major investment funds from big tobacco
The had to be forced to restrict certain marketing policies even though it was clear that vaping had become epidemic in high schools.
They pursue the same kinds of hyper aggressive promotion overseas the cigarette companies do, continuing with practices that are now prevented in the US
They happily ignore the evidence that many people in this new generation of addicts switch in-part or in-whole to cigarettes.
People like Tim Danaher should be behind bars. It's amazing to me that you can kill, injure, or put at risk hundreds of thousands of lives in the name of profit, but so long as you do it while working for a large enough business you get to continue to live in the luxury those profits afford you no matter how much innocent blood you spilled to gain them. I don't know exactly when we decided that serial killers in suits are perfectly acceptable to us, but even the companies themselves who allow this sort thing to happen are rarely punished enough to offset the gains they made exploiting their customers.
I expect there to be people in this world who will do anything to satisfy their greed, I just don't understand why we continue to let it happen again and again in industry after industry without holding anyone meaningfully accountable for their part in it.
> The lawsuit claims that then-CEO Kevin Burns shot down that idea, saying, “Half our customers are drunk and vaping like mo-fos, who the fuck is going to notice the quality of our pods.”
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
He didn't say anything that anyone who takes three seconds to think "wait, how is this free, what are they doing with this data" wasn't/isn't thinking.
That's way different than saying who cares if we poison people, they're alcoholic hipsters
And it's specially damning if that's a quote by a person that's now in charge of so much sensitive data.
It's not damming at all. With no knowledge of where or when the quote is from, just looking at it I immediately go "likely a college student, with no business experience whatsoever, made a casual statement in conversation with a friend long before his product grew to the size it is today and now random people on the internet are vilifying for something he said in casual conversation probably a decade and and a half ago even though the comment shows no malice and is more a statement of disbelief in how little people think about their privacy"
...He's literally offering up their personal information on demand. "No malice"? That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, people can have a good moral grounding in their late teens/early twenties. What evidence do you have which shows he's changed at all?
At that size of the site/database that's no different than going "here's my rolodex, who's info do you want".
[0]: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2007/11/facebook-unveils-facebo...
Assuming the allegations are substantial and true, Danaher should be very grateful that he's protected by the law. I can't imagine the urge for vengeance that would be felt by a parent of someone who died from this.
The CDC findings were that black market THC pods are causing the deaths. It seems most of the current moral outrage and reactionary, emergency regulations on (nicotine) vaping have been because people have not been doing their research at all.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/podcasts/the-daily/vaping...
It's called grandstanding
If we could work out a way to financially incentivise taking care of each other many of our problems would change swiftly and dramatically.
Then the vape company has a direct incentive to help me be successful.
Such a payment system should be assisted by government (ie. Government should give out forms which prove your earnings), and banks (who would remember who is due what percentage of your earnings and distribute appropriately).
The basics of such a system already exists in the UK, where students commit to paying 9% of their future income to pay for university (with a time limit and money limit).
This is a classic move in our economy: 1) product or service slowly becomes more expensive relative to income, 2) a subsidy that was supposed to go to the bottom tier to help even the playing field but is now used by more and more people due to 1 adjusts it's payout to return to it's planned effectiveness, then 3) product or service operator notices that consumers have more available money and adjusts their cost upwards.
Similar effects have been observed in more nuanced ways, like the costs of fresh fruits and vegetables being higher than boxed and processed foods, so low income food subsidy programs bump their monetary payouts to encourage purchasing of fresh foods, and some boxed or processed foods have a statistically unusual bump in retail prices in the area. This is the kind of bullshit that really starts to make me think that the USA needs a secondary monetary system (not bitcoin/blockchain, and not Dollar based) to be used for redemption of welfare and entitlement benefits which would make it impossible to track between something like an increase in food stamp benefits and monetary compensation for the use of those benefits. I'm cool with Kraft thinking that Velveeta cheese "product" needs to be more expensive in our magical capatalistic society, I'm just not cool with them thinking that only because the lowest income shoppers suddenly have 5 more cents in their account every month.
Just pointing out the obvious, people do crazy and harmful shit for money all the time (eg. Juul execs). Possibly more often than people with more “legitimate” reasons (eg. Vengeance).
So uh, do such people actually exist? The article doesn't suggest that anyone died.
For all we know Juul shipped 1M mint pods contaminated with strawberry flavour. The fact that the story completely avoids this is a bit suspicious.
"Mr. Breja brings this action after he was terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing and objecting to the contaminated pod shipment and other illegal and unsafe conduct that has jeopardized and continues to jeopardize public health and safety and the lives of millions of consumers, many of them children and teens."
I think it's safe to say this isn't about strawberry flavoured mint
I was simply reflecting on the factors at play in situations like this.
And the VCs who enable and amplify such behaviors. These are the real power players who give the Tim Danaher's the confidence to continue with their terrible actions.
I mean, that's how America's been since the very beginning. First we had slavery, then we had corporations getting away with killing workers through heinous workplace negligence, e.g. the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. I'm not saying it's good that this has always been so, or that citizens should be apathetic in the face of repeated sociopathy, merely that realizing that the country's always been like this is a necessary step for understanding why the serial killers in suits seem to have so much power.
Other causes have had similar successes. The cause of abolition (or at least unease about slavery) was enough to elect Lincoln in 1860 despite Lincoln not appearing on the ballots of the entire South. Which, of course, started the process & war which ended slavery. Abolition won, albeit in a very bloody way.
I think it's not a case of people not caring. It's a case of people care enormously but they feel powerless and they feel alone in their caring. This goes on until that day when they realize they're not alone.
It's interesting that we live in the most connected age ever where creating, building, and coordinating social movements has never been easier or more possible yet the labor movement and unions are dying, consumer protections and regulations are inadequate, privacy protections are nonexistent and constitutionally protected freedoms are flagrantly ignored and bypassed. I'm not sure what the problem is, but it seems like every social movement and organization that fought for the rights of the average person up until around the time of the free speech movement got much more accomplished while overcoming much more than we'd have to deal with now.
Protesting slavery was extremely difficult. Protesting the workplace got you labeled a communist or socialist.
And now when we protest against climate change or ask for more workers rights or BLM people are generally against it.
If society is unable to prosecute criminal negligence, that's another matter; it's not about a mantra or ethos or something, we just have to do our jobs, and things will get better like they have been.
Take for example the recent deregulation that is undoing clean water and air protections to the benefit of a few industries. That obviously takes something (health) away from the people and gives it to a few companies as financial profits. Of course, those deregulations came because the companies had lobbyists and other agents who were providing financial benefit to a few politicians, and those politicians greedily placed themselves above the people.
When the government bodies that should be prosecuting criminal negligence (such as the 2007/8 banking crisis), the pharma-created opiod crisis, etc. have been gradually staffed by people from the industries doing the bad acting, that leaves society armless and unable to do anything other than protest (which they do, at times). But unless those protests become really violent (which I don't want), nothing can happen. Remember Occupy Wall Street? That was beginning to be an effective protest campaign, but eventually the cities began employing illegal tactics to break it up and shut it down. Since the people didn't turn violent, it was successfully put down.
I don't see a solution to the current situation other than waiting it out until the old corrupt people in power die off naturally. Younger generations are enough pissed that they might change some things once there are fewer kings of the political hills.
Otherwise it opens up any executive to tons of personal risk by taking a leadership role in any major public company with any sort of consumer liability. Or worse getting punished for subordinates behaviour with some idealistic perspective on what the executives show be in control of.
That type of arrangement would likely result in worse executives who are more risk-friendly. While the ones who are careful and averse to risk would stay in a non-executive position with very low risk that kicks upstairs or only take the safe executive jobs (even if the cases are likely to fail in court).
This will create a booming workplace legal insurance industry that will cover downside risks of lawyer costs and loss of income going into prison. Which helps minimize the disincentives this sort of thing would need to create to be effective.
I'm open to these ideas but there really has to be some serious conditions thought out.
We can't keep turning a blind eye to the hundreds of outrageous examples of ignoring health impacts and lying in public whilst the real facts are in a filing cabinet at head office.
Frankly the law should have changed dramatically after discovery of Thomas Midgley and tetra-ethyl lead, "the science on smoking and health isn't settled", or Bhopal etc. We have centuries of proof there aren't adequate consequences.
> getting punished for subordinates behaviour
That's what leadership is. Responsibility for those under you on your watch. If you fired or prosecuted them on first discovery, that forms a decent proportion of mitigating circumstance. Perhaps you'll still be found negligent for not having adequate checks and balances to prevent it happening in the first place...
At least some of those examples are tied up with one industry spinning up misleading studies to make money by known false messages of margarine over butter or sugar vs fat etc. Chances are Nestle, Kraft and Coke or whoever have dozens of studies they didn't reveal sitting in the filing cabinet before they got the couple that gave the misleading results they needed to make a ton more money.
It's nearly always the case that when we find out years or decades later, "they knew" and actually had extensive investigation on the topic - but chose not to care, or found a way to actively brief against the public interest, rather than it had simply never occurred to them to look or an innocent mistake was made. No, it generally turns out they have pretty extensive science and studies, just very very selective about what they let on about. Maybe there's a high profile spokes-PhD or two and everyone spends decades believing the problem is fat not sugars and apparently there are no consequences.
If the company and execs, and past execs were held accountable, and had a duty of care to customers and public, perhaps their past bullshit, PR lies, and talking bollocks under Congressional Committee oath (I believe one was "We don't believe tobacco is addictive" from assorted CEOs under oath) can come back to haunt them. What would match with 2 years CEO jail time for the corporate-personhood? 2 years delisting and forfeit of dividends or profit? That might focus investors and execs on appropriate board integrity a little more... :)
Is it really that old-fashioned to think there should be consequences for those who cheat even if they hide behind a corporation? Back when I was a director I actually gave a shit about us being honest, offering an honest service, and holding the staff to the same standard - especially when they were talking on the company's behalf.
It's all publication bias, but maybe in a post-Columbine witch hunt you'd end up in jail.
The TL;DR the customer is the other party to mutually benefit from our offering, not a cow to be industrially milked regardless. After 40 years I still haven't bought into "greed is good", we should aspire - and regulate - to a higher standard to everyone's benefit. :)
In a more general business context I would hope to show we a) thought about it and investigated it properly then b) took a considered view that we could stand by if it was later publicised or leaked, i.e. properly exercised our duty of care and reasonable ethics.
Knowing there's a problem and carefully keeping quiet about it, or pretending the opposite and spinning against - maybe even hiring a PR agency to sow doubt, or ignoring contaminated product -- well those all seem to tip easily into criminal negligence and should come with serious consequence for both directors and company.
As an aside, I've always found it most odd that US tv is frequently laissez-faire on violence, but will beep out or overdub minor-friendly trivial profanity or get all puritan about a hint of nipple or human relations. Mostly the opposite of the European perspective. I quite often fast forward through the boring over-long fight sequence or shoot outs in US TV and movies... If it's an 18 rated horror I've sat down to watch, sure, bring it - though I'll probably still skip the 5 minute OTT shoot out to save yawns... :)
I think executives should be at major personal risk when their companies do things that cause injury or death to many people. It will force them to make sure that the people under them are following the rules and that their products are safe. Mistakes will surely happen and I don't think we should ignore it when a company who makes every reasonable effort to protect their customers still fails and people are hurt. That shouldn't necessarily get them off the hook entirely but it should matter. In cases where it's more obvious like in the case of the tobacco industry intentionally misleading customers about the risks of their product, or the auto industry selling cars they know are dangerous, or this one where the company was well aware of the problem but did nothing in order to protect their bottom line they should very clearly be held responsible.
I'm not sure that holding executives responsible for clear exploitation would make them more likely to take risks. It seems to me that as long they know they wont be held accountable for killing people they'll be more likely to do it. Companies would also be less likely to promote reckless people if they knew doing so could mean they might face a corporate death penalty.
I do agree however that the specifics of who to hold accountable and to what extent they are punished are complicated issues. We've had decades of examples showing it's far past time we put in the work to come up with something however.
Seems to me that they wouldn't have it both ways...
This is a new conversation about adding risks never seen in the history of business outside of explicit fraud and criminal behaviour.
The Opioid Pharma trials are the closest thing to justice I have seen in my lifetime.
I do hope this is a positive step towards corporate accountability. God knows we severely need it in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_Xiaoyu
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-01/23/content_742298...
This is a garbage clickbait article and Buzzfeed should be ashamed.
If the contaminant was serious, there's a media strategy where you suppress what it is for now to maximize the favorability of your settlement. After all you go to court, you'll publish what that contaminant is, it's as good as winning against Juul without actually winning.
The thing I'm more confused about is why you're being so generous to a nicotine manufacturer.
I have no bone in this fight, but I wouldn't get my blood pressure up over a story like this.
The article has plenty of detail. The person filing is a former employee making easily disproved accusations, what would be the point of suing and then having it immediately tossed out because he can't prove anything was contaminated? He even cites the supplier it came from.
More to your point, if I'm going to take the accusation of "clickbait" seriously, the article elaborates on what the headline says, and substantiates it. It doesn't mention the contaminant, but that doesn't make it "clickbait".
>When we talk about clickbait internally, we tend to focus on the idea of under-delivering on a misleading headline. The risk that a reader will feel she has been duped into clicking.
To your point, it also says:
>Others often seem to be using "clickbait" as a free-floating term of derision. There are many reasons one might dislike an article but calling it clickbait has become an all-purpose way of expressing that disapproval.
So which of those best describes this BuzzFeed article?
I don't think the headline is misleading, but BuzzFeed definitely under-delivered by not mentioning the contaminant. They showed their hand by not even acknowledging that they are missing that important detail.
Honestly, it's shameful. It's like they have so little respect for their readers that they think their readers won't notice that the most important detail in this story -- mentioned in the headline, no less -- is missing.
[1]: https://www.vox.com/2015/2/13/8033937/clickbait-explained
Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.