Carbolic smoke ball: fake or cure?

By Clive Coleman BBC Radio 4

The curious case of the carbolic smoke ball forced companies to treat customers honestly and openly and still has impact today.

The 1892 case of Carlill and the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company is an odd tale set against the backdrop of the swirling mists and fog of Victorian London, a terrifying Russian flu pandemic, and a forest of unregulated quack medicines offering cures for just about everything.

It is a case known to legal students the world over. It is also seen by some as the birth of modern consumer protection – as it helped to define in law the trading relationship between a company and its customers.

The carbolic smoke ball was a peculiar device marketed as a cure for various ailments including influenza. It consisted of a rubber ball, filled with powdered carbolic acid. You squeezed the ball sending a puff of acidic smoke right up a tube inserted into your nose. The idea was that your nose would run and the cold would be flushed out.

Cash or cure

The company making the ball advertised it in the Pall Mall Gazette offering a £100 reward to anyone using it correctly who then contracted influenza. They deposited £1,000 in the Alliance Bank in Regent Street to show the money was there.

The advert also contained testimonials from a raft of aristocrats and clergy – the Victorian equivalent of today’s celebrity endorsement.

It was seen by one Mrs Louisa Elizabeth Carlill. She bought a ball and used it, as directed, three times daily for nearly two months, then promptly caught the flu. Not surprisingly she claimed her reward from the company.

The manufacturers ignored two letters from her husband who had trained as a solicitor. They finally replied saying that if used properly they had total confidence in their product.

Ladies in Victorian London take the air to ward off the ‘flu

In order to protect themselves against a fraudulent claim they stated Mrs Carlill would have to attend their offices at 27 Princess Street, Hanover Square, London each day and have her use of the ball checked by their secretary.

Mrs Carlill sued, claiming there was a contract between her and the company. The company denied there was one. She won her case in the High Court.