Perhaps my favourite genre of anything is when people emerge from the plush, soothing surrounds of their echo chamber to get run over by reality. There is nothing quite like seeing someone learn, in real-time, why curiosity, humility, and self-reflection are vital parts of reaching conclusions that can withstand light scrutiny.
I believe that the City of Baltimore against Philip Morris International (PMI), Swedish Match North America LLC, and Swedish Match USA, Inc. could be one of those magic moments.
The complaint
The complaint in question is brought by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, acting through Baltimore City Solicitor Ebony M. Thompson and the Baltimore City Law Department. The City is the official plaintiff, but they’re suing on behalf of the people of Baltimore.
The City alleges that PMI and Swedish Match broke local consumer protection laws by marketing Zyn nicotine pouches in ways that put kids and teens at risk.
The main thrust of the complaint looks at a few key areas, which are:
- Youth targeting.
- Deceptive or misleading marketing.
- Public health concerns.
The cash-strapped City wants fines, injunctive relief, and any other remedies the court deems appropriate.
To achieve this aim, you’d think the City must have pulled together some solid evidence? Well, you’d be wrong. Instead, they’re coming at PMI with innuendo and rampant speculation that will be exposed for what it is.
Let’s take a look at five of the most stupid arguments within the complaint.
#1. “Flavours target children”
When vaping was getting a lot of negative headlines, there were quite a lot of whimsical and nostalgic flavours that public health groups suggested were about targeting younger audiences. That shoddy argument was built on the assumption that the moment someone turns 18, they instantly become allergic to sweet items, such as desserts.
While anyone who has ever heard of marketing understands that these diverse flavours were classic product differentiation, after the JUUL disaster, companies read the room. When it came to marketing ZYN, the flavours were fairly stripped back and simple, which is to say, adult-focused.
However, this hasn’t stopped the City from suggesting that flavours are deliberately targeted at youth users. The problem is, they don’t have Fruit Loop, Skittles, or Cotton Candy ZYN pouches to use as evidence. Instead, they’re hoping that a judge will nod along as they suggest a marketing team that was deliberately targeting kids would use a range comprising mint, citrus, and wintergreen.
The above flavours are legal for adult products across the US and are not banned in Maryland. The claim that making a legal product “palatable” to adults is evidence of youth targeting is for the birds.
#2. Social media
Next up, the City suggests the ZYN’s mere presence on social media is tantamount to youth targeting. The complaint indicates that sponsoring music and sports events is also evidence of targeting youth. The vast majority of attendees at these gatherings are adults, and these advertising spaces are typically occupied by car manufacturers, beer companies, financial apps, and other similar entities.
The complaint, fatally, suggests that ZYN pays influencers to promote its product. The lightest research would have revealed that ZYN does not utilise influencer partnerships as part of its marketing strategy.
I don’t know how they think ZYN can market its product without social media and event sponsorships. The other thing is that their ads are age-gated.
#3. “Rewards Program Preys on Youth”
The complaint focuses on ZYN’s rewards program, claiming it has an arcade feel that is intended to deceive children. In the process, they inadvertently stumble upon the concept of gamification, which is used by employers, software developers, and more, to engage adult workers and customers.
Everyone uses rewards programs. Coffee shops, air miles, supermarkets, and more understand that these little extras help develop brand loyalty. Again, the City of Baltimore seems unable to distinguish between basic marketing concepts and predatory practices designed to target youth.
#4. “Marketing as 'Tobacco-Free' Is Deceptive”
The great minds behind this frivolous trash also have an issue with ZYN suggesting their tobacco-free product is… tobacco-free.
The FDA and FTC have both permitted “tobacco-free nicotine” to describe products that contain purified, isolated nicotine as long as the finished product contains no tobacco leaf or structural tobacco.
There is nothing deceptive about it. There would be if the product were not tobacco-free; however, it is indeed tobacco-free.
#5. “Rapid Sales Growth Among Minors”
The final piece of speculation worth examining is the argument that because youths are using pouches in small numbers, this is evidence of youth targeting. The sheer naivety of the complaint is laid bare here because it can’t imagine any other way that someone under 18 might hear about or access nicotine pouches.
They offer no evidence of ads that were targeting Baltimore youth or illegal sales by the defendants. Instead, they believe that PMI is somehow responsible for every retailer who didn’t ask for ID, every peer who shared a pouch, or every non-retail sale of a tin.
Final thoughts
I’ve read some pretty frivolous lawsuits over the years, but this one is hard to beat. It’s a hastily drawn rehash of the weakest and most misguided tobacco control rhetoric. It comes with all the logical leaps and insinuations that have become the hallmark of that wretched group of charlatans, and it should rightly be laughed out of court to whimper back into the cloistered confines of the Bloomberg-funded NGOs who pretend to believe this nonsense.
