Litigators' E-Cigarette Campaign Pays Off: 100 Calls in 3 Weeks
Connecticut-based Carter Mario Law Firm is known for its marketing and advertising and recently went all-out in an effort to reach e-cigarette users. The law firm advertised not just on television but on several social media platforms.
November 07, 2019 at 06:07 PM
4 minute read
Hundreds of potential Connecticut litigants want to "Get Carter" to bring suits over electronic cigarettes in what experts say is a sign of an emerging litigation trend.
The uptick is evident at the Carter Mario Law Firm, whose marketing tag line is "Get Carter." The firm has focused on personal injury and defective product claims, but is now honing its marketing efforts on e-cigarette litigation.
"We've had close to 100 people, if not more, contact us from the ads they saw," said senior litigation attorney Ryan Veilleux.
The Carter Mario Law Firm has long had marketing efforts in the Nutmeg State. Its advertising appeared on television and radio in the 1990s, targeting personal-injury business. But its most recent and ambitious endeavor is a campaign to represent e-cigarette users who claim harm from the product.
The attorneys appear to have picked up on a litigation trend emerging across the country: suits and statewide probes alleging e-cigarettes are dangerous, especially to teenagers. To reach young litigants, they've taken the marketing campaign to social media, and have online advertisements, blog postings and Facebook pages.
The Carter Mario Law Firm has stayed true to what has always worked for it: television. The firm has been airing between 10 and 15 advertisements per day on local television in the past three weeks. The response has been more than anyone at the firm expected, litigator Veilleux said.
Veilleux is one of four attorneys who will be working on e-cigarette cases for the firm, which is also collaborating with other attorneys throughout the country.
"We've certainly conducted a lot of research on this topic. It's all new, but we certainly have a head start over everyone else in the state," he said. "I'm not aware of anyone else in Connecticut who is actively investigating claims right now."
Among the potential targets of these potential suits: San Francisco-based Juul Labs, which is fighting litigation accusing it of marketing to underage users. The legal age to use a Juul product is 21.
Juul was founded in 2017 as an arm of cigarette manufacturer Atria Group Inc., and its subsidiary, Phillip Morris USA Inc. It faces mounting litigation with suits in Connecticut, Florida, Illinois and elsewhere in the country.
No one from Juul's media relations department responded to a request for comment Thursday.
Meanwhile, some court watchers believe e-cigarettes litigation will soon be as common as lawsuits over tobacco products.
"They [Juul officials] are marketing the hell out of this product and, instead of selling them to smokers trying to quit, it turns out most of the e-cigarettes were sold to kids," said Mark Dubois, visiting assistant clinical professor of law at the University of Connecticut School of Law. "Their marketing is geared toward kids."
Dubois, an attorney with New London-based Geraghty & Bonnano, said the e-cigarettes, particularly Juul products, do "not have warnings on them that nicotine is addictive, because the [Food and Drug Administration] gave them a chance to figure out the technology first, but allowed them to market the product without the warning and without medical studies.
"Essentially, I can imagine an argument by an attorney that what this company was doing was, instead of testing on monkeys and rats, they tested on teens," Dubois said. "I can see the arguments, and I can see a lot of litigation."
And what about the Carter Mario Law Firm's strong marketing push in an profession with strict advertising rules?
Dubois sees no immediate missteps. Connecticut's former top attorney disciplinarian and co-author of "Connecticut Legal Ethics and Malpractice" sees no ethical problems related to efforts from the firm or its founder, Carter Mario.
"Carter Mario is a good attorney," Dubois said. "He knows where the lines are, and he won't cross them. He helped write the rules for lawyer advertising."
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Big Law Congressional Investigation Practices Will Stay Busy in 2025
5 minute readHurricane Helene's Impact On Asheville, North Carolina: How Public and Private Attorneys Dealt With Closures, Safety and Sanitation
Big Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250