Yikes! @LiquidNicotineW
What have you gotten yourself into? 
Good luck with that! 
3 Likes
Well they have finally printed the shipping label! But it still hasn’t shipped. And my order was placed on the 26th!
4 Likes
I trust they’ll get it shipped (since you’ve finally gotten a label). Appreciate your update as well!
Here’s hoping everyone who ordered gets all they paid for in good faith, and in good condition!
3 Likes
It’s funny I was checking my email to get the order number because I was going to send them an email stating I needed movement of my package or I was canceling my payment, that’s when I got the email saying they printed my shipping label!
3 Likes
In my opinion, anyone selling nicotine products to minors should be “busted”. If you cannot put adequate safeguards and protections into place then get out of the business. It puts the entire vaping culture in a bad light. Just my two cents.
1 Like
The F.D.A. did a sting on them, the where looking to see if a minor could, not that a minor did. here’s the thing, If you are trying to buy something online you have to use some form of electronic payment wich means you are supposed to be 18 therefor not a minor, so could a minor buy stuff yes, is it there fault that someone lied to be able to purchase the item in question?
1 Like
Do you have info on this? I’d like to look into this myself and keep a record/bookmark on vendors which have been subject to FDA stings. 
As I stated earlier, the FDA did this to epipemods.com… the owner posted a video on the YouTube. Any info of where to read or watch about the sting on RTS would be great. 
2 Likes
i believe someone posted a link to the FDA paperwork online i don’t remember who. The whole situation with the government and vaping chapps my ass, and when people jump to conclusions it makes it worse, sorry i don’t have any more information.
2 Likes
I didn’t read it as a “sting”, but rather as a “confirmed kill”.
www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2017/ucm564558.htm
Sales to Minors Violation
2 Likes
If it truly was someone under 18 they would have a redacted name there not just someone under 18.
Also they are saying it’s mis branded not that they are in trouble for selling to under age, but that the item in question was misbranded.
2 Likes
Personally whether they do or do not publish a name is immaterial. The fact is they have proof it happened, or they wouldn’t have brought a legal notice forward. (I’m sure that each entities legal teams will have ample access to proof, or such allegations would not stand in court)
But that brings up a whole host of other questions and observations, at least from me, that aren’t things we have any control over. The biggest of which would be, even if no one physically handed a minor a card to verify/enable an illegal purchase (even for testing purposes; ie: a sting), if a minor opened a bank account in their name (with or without a guardian’s assistance), which I believe most can do at 16, why do banks/CC’s not have a restricted system in place that automatically monitors, and then disallows “age-restricted” purchases by default? As while most banks have bank only logo cards, once you setup an account, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t opt in for the free debit card, which always has a MC or Visa logo, and subsequent affiliated “universal abilities”.
The onus ought to be on the automated payment system, not the business, unless it’s face to face, or cash is changing hands.
Just my 2 cents.
3 Likes
Isn’t the personal information of minors (under 18 years of age) redacted because of Privacy Protection laws in the US? I believe the FDA can not disclose the name or any other information concerning a child into public documents. I’m no lawyer, I just watch a lot of court TV. So feel free to educate me.
3 Likes
@Sprkslfly Yes but it would still say it was redacted if in fact it actually happened, the thing with government and paperwork, they do not leave anything out they redact it but they don’t leave it out, they do this so you know information is being withheld, and would have to file paperwork to possibly get said information. So my previous statement stands, if in fact there was a name it would have Been redacted not omitted.
2 Likes
Oh okay. On the Regulatory Procedures for warning letters at the FDA it states:
A Warning Letter is informal and advisory. It communicates the agency’s position on a matter, but it does not commit FDA to taking enforcement action. For these reasons, FDA does not consider Warning Letters to be final agency action on which it can be sued.
So if it is informal, then would it be necessary to state “redacted”?
Link: Regulatory Procedures Manual: 4-1-1 - Warning Letter Procedures
2 Likes
Yes, the reason they redact and don’t omit is because that way you know there is information missing. If they omit the information then you have no idea the information is available but if it is redacted then you can file paperwork to get the information.
2 Likes
Gotcha. Consider me educated. Thank you.
3 Likes
I have to do paperwork to there specifecations so I know how they fill out there forms and why.
2 Likes
Whenever I’ve seen or heard “redacted”, it’s been from a military or Security standpoint.
But my thick head fails to understand why you insist on tying whether or not it happened, based on an omission or redaction, where they clearly state, in print,
Even if it means the FDA sat a kid in the room with them, while being filmed… It still happened. Or there wouldn’t be a warning.
To me it makes no difference, as both are simply a means to obfuscation, regardless of intent. I think both methods have been used previously, and often times the only distinguishing factor is who’s calling the shot as to which method is used.
I also concede that your experiences may be quite different, or far more expansive (as I have little experience with legal matters) than my own! 
I feel like we’re both kind of playing Devil’s advocate here (and that’s fine) but thinking through the process, is also what led to my “solution” above (responsibility for such matters should fall on the shoulders of the CC companies with respect to online purchases.
No harm, no foul, and no offense. Just trying to understand as well!
2 Likes
None taken, it doesn’t really effect either of us other than loosing a supplier, I’m not saying I’m a lawyer or anything like that just know what the standards are as far as how they like there paperwork, I have seen paperwork that is basically just black from everything being redacted, it’s like WTF do you want me to do with this? There is nothing here but a date, that aside if you read further in the letter it has to do with stuff being mis labeled, as in it doesn’t say not for sale to minors.
3 Likes