B.C. Can Sue Vaping Firms for Health Costs

Summary#

This bill lets British Columbia sue vaping companies to recover public health care costs linked to vaping. It targets makers, wholesalers, consultants, and trade groups whose products or actions contribute to disease, injury, addiction, or other health harms from vaping.

• Allows the province to sue for costs tied to vaping-related illness, including past harm (retroactive).
• Lets courts use population-level data and market share to assign how much each company pays.
• Makes company directors and officers personally responsible if they took part in wrongdoing.
• Protects patient privacy by using anonymized data in large-scale cases.
• Allows BC to sue alongside other Canadian governments; takes effect on Royal Assent.
• Focuses on nicotine products; cannabis vaping devices and substances are excluded.

What it means for you#

• Vapers and smokers who vape

  • No direct change to what you can buy or use from this bill alone.
  • If lawsuits succeed, companies may raise prices to cover payouts.

• Parents and students

  • The province can count school-based programs tied to vaping harms as health costs. This could help recover money spent on prevention and support in schools.
  • No new rules for students are created by this bill.

• Taxpayers and patients

  • The goal is to shift public health costs caused by vaping from taxpayers to companies.
  • Your personal medical records are not shared in court in government “aggregate” cases; only anonymized samples may be used if a judge orders it.

• Small retailers

  • Ordinary retailers are generally not targeted. The bill mainly targets manufacturers, wholesalers, consultants, and trade groups.
  • Retailers tied to a manufacturer (for example, through ownership) could be affected.

• Wholesalers, manufacturers, consultants, and company directors

  • Greater legal risk for costs related to vaping harms, including for past conduct.
  • Courts can assign costs using market share and other factors (like how risky the conduct was or whether warnings were given).
  • Directors and officers can be personally responsible if they knew about or took part in wrongdoing.

• Privacy

  • In large-scale cases, individual identities and detailed records are protected. Only anonymized, statistical evidence is used, unless a court orders a limited, anonymized sample.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Makes companies, not taxpayers, pay for health care costs linked to vaping.
• Uses population-level science and market data to avoid making sick individuals prove their case one by one.
• Personal accountability for directors and officers discourages risky marketing or ignoring harms, especially to youth.
• Retroactive coverage and a long window to sue stop companies from escaping responsibility for past actions.
• Protects patient privacy while still letting the government prove the overall harm and costs.
• Lets BC work with other governments to build stronger cases and reduce duplication.

Opponents' View#

• Retroactive rules and long time limits are unfair to companies that followed past laws and guidance.
• Court “presumptions” and minister-issued certificates (treated as final proof of costs) tilt the process too far against defendants.
• Legal costs and payouts could raise consumer prices or limit access to vaping as a harm-reduction tool for adult smokers.
• Broad definitions (including consultants and trade groups) may sweep in businesses far from day-to-day sales.
• Risk-based sharing of costs without pinpointing which product harmed which person could lead to overpayment.
• More lawsuits could add to court backlogs and create uncertainty for employers, investors, and researchers.