The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 65 complaints about a series of ads for e-cigarettes, including a television ad, a radio ad, an internet banner ad, a poster at a bus stop, and a display on the side of a bus. After evaluating the ads for potential violations of the advertising code, the ASA found that the television and radio ads were misleading because they did not make clear what product was being advertised and whether it contained nicotine. The ASA noted that this information was especially important because e-cigarettes were still a relatively new product in the UK. Additionally, the ASA found that the TV ad was of particular interest to children because it featured a dancing baby. Because the ad was appealing to children and also referred to smoking it violated the advertising code related to tobacco advertising. The ASA ordered that the TV and radio ad not be broadcast again in their current form. However, the ASA found that the internet ad and posters did not violate the advertising code by encouraging smoking because they promoted an alternative to smoking.
ASA Adjudication on Zandera Ltd, Complaint Ref: A13-219706 (2013).
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.
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"We noted BCAP Code rule 10.5 required that ads that might be of particular interest to children or teenagers must not refer to tobacco or smoking, unless that reference obviously formed part of an anti-smoking or anti-drugs message. We noted TV ad (b) did not carry that message. We acknowledged that there were no direct references to smoking or tobacco products, but the ad nonetheless referred to smoking by showing the man going outside for a cigarette. ... [W]e considered that children were also likely to see the ad at other times of the day and the issue was unlikely to be resolved with a timing restriction. Because we considered that the content of the ad would be of particular interest to children and also referred to smoking, we concluded that the ad breached the Code."
"We recognised that e-cigarettes were still a relatively new product in the UK and considered that it was important that such ads made the nature of the product being advertised clear and, whether or not it contained nicotine, was material information that needed to be included in the ads in order to avoid the likelihood of misleading consumers. We therefore concluded that ads (a) and (b) were misleading."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 65 complaints about a series of ads for e-cigarettes, including a television ad, a radio ad, an internet banner ad, a poster at a bus stop, and a display on the side of a bus. After evaluating the ads for potential violations of the advertising code, the ASA found that the television and radio ads were misleading because they did not make clear what product was being advertised and whether it contained nicotine. The ASA noted that this information was especially important because e-cigarettes were still a relatively new product in the UK. Additionally, the ASA found that the TV ad was of particular interest to children because it featured a dancing baby. Because the ad was appealing to children and also referred to smoking it violated the advertising code related to tobacco advertising. The ASA ordered that the TV and radio ad not be broadcast again in their current form. However, the ASA found that the internet ad and posters did not violate the advertising code by encouraging smoking because they promoted an alternative to smoking.