A print ad for e-cigarettes included the text “The Safer Smoking Alternative” and “Healthier.” The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) evaluated whether the ad was misleading. In its defense, the company said that the ad appeared only once, that it would not be repeated in the future, and that they were working with a new advertising agency. Nevertheless, the ASA found the ad misleading because the claims in the ad could be understood to mean that e-cigarettes were less harmful than smoking. The ASA ordered the company not to claim that products were “safer” or “healthier” than smoking in the future without adequate evidence.
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
Electronic and/or battery-operated devices designed to deliver an inhaled dose of nicotine or other substances. Examples include electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), electronic cigars, electronic cigarillos, electronic hookah, vaporizers, and vape pens. ENDS does not include any device or medication approved by the government as nicotine replacement therapy.
A print ad for e-cigarettes included the text “The Safer Smoking Alternative” and “Healthier.” The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) evaluated whether the ad was misleading. In its defense, the company said that the ad appeared only once, that it would not be repeated in the future, and that they were working with a new advertising agency. Nevertheless, the ASA found the ad misleading because the claims in the ad could be understood to mean that e-cigarettes were less harmful than smoking. The ASA ordered the company not to claim that products were “safer” or “healthier” than smoking in the future without adequate evidence.