LANGUAGE

Type of Tobacco Product: E-cigarettes and other ENDS products

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
Or Or

... but don't show pages that have:

Search Criteria:

from:to:
 

Search Results Results 1-10 of 68

Korea Electronic Cigarette Association v. Ministry of Health and Welfare [South Korea] [March 17, 2020]

The Korea Electronic Cigarette Association challenged the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s directive, which held that e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products are not safer alternatives for smokers who are trying to quit cigarettes. The association also disagreed with the claim that small amounts of vitamin E acetate, a thickening agent that has been linked to vaping-related lung injuries, had been found in some products. The Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the Ministry of Health and Welfare because directives do not infringe on e-cigarette companies' constitutional rights, as they are only recommendations and are not legally binding.

ASA Ruling on British American Tobacco UK Ltd. [United Kingdom] [December 18, 2019]

Following complaints by leading health organizations, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that British American Tobacco (BAT) can no longer use any public Instagram account to promote e-cigarettes in the UK. The ruling includes BAT’s use of influencer marketing to advertise e-cigarettes and orders BAT to remove unlawful e-cigarette advertising content currently on Instagram.

UK regulations clearly prohibit online advertising of e-cigarettes, but allow a manufacturer to provide factual product information such as the name, content and price of the product on its own websites. The ASA ruling has clarified that public social media accounts, like @govype run by BAT, are not analogous to a website, and therefore, neither factual nor promotional content for e-cigarettes is permitted.

The Tel Aviv Chamber of Commerce v. State of Israel – Ministry of Health, Israeli Knesset, and Knesset Economics Committee [Israel] [November 25, 2019]

The importer and manufacturers' forum of vaporization products at the Tel Aviv Chamber of Commerce challenged amendments to the Restriction of Advertising and Marketing of Tobacco Products Law passed in December 2018. The Tel Aviv Chamber of Commerce specifically challenged the extension of tobacco-related restrictions to e-cigarettes, including an advertising ban, a display ban, and plain packaging, as well as a nicotine concentration limit of 20mg/ml for e-liquids. This case was dismissed.

National Council of Consumers and Users (Associazione dei Consumatori) v. two electronic cigarette manufacturers [names redacted] [Italy] [November 15, 2019]

The National Council of Consumers and Users, headquartered in Rome, petitioned a civil division at the Court of Rome on September 13, 2019 against two e-cigarette defendants to have their marketing removed on the internet (including via defendants’ own social media accounts), printed publications, and through organizing or sponsoring public events aimed at promoting e-cigarettes.

The Court found in favor of plaintiffs holding that “[i]n view of the "restrictive approach to the advertising of electronic cigarettes and liquid refill containers" aimed at achieving "a high level of protection of human health", clearly stated in Paragraph 43 of Directive 2014/40/EU, the defense argument shall be dismissed..

The Court ordered:

  1. Defendants’ remove all commercial communications related to electronic cigarettes and refill cartridges deemed unlawful (including content from their websites and social media pages and all unlawful content reposted by Defendants) within 15 days from the date of this judgment;
  2. Defendants will be fined € 500.00 for each violation and for each day of delay in the execution of this order; and
  3. Defendants are jointly liable to the reimbursement of all legal costs related to these proceedings in favor of plaintiffs and to a compensation of €6,000.00 in addition to administrative costs, VAT and CPA.

[Unnamed Actor] v. México [Mexico] [October 02, 2019]

An agent from the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS) confiscated electronic cigarettes from the plaintiff under Article 16(VI) of the General Law on Tobacco Control, which states: "It is prohibited to trade, sell, distribute, display, promote or produce any object that is not a tobacco product which contains some of the brand elements or any type of design or auditory sign that identifies it with tobacco products." The plaintiff filed an Amparo action challenging the interpretation of Article 16. The Ministers of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) decided unanimously that it is unconstitutional to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes while, on the other hand, the sale of tobacco products is allowed in Mexico. The Court considered that even though the law seeks to protect the right to health, this cannot be done at the cost of an excessive affectation of other goods and rights. The Ministers agreed that prohibiting the sale of electronic cigarettes while the sale of tobacco products is allowed violates the right to equality, and that the measure is not the least restrictive to guarantee other constitutionally protected rights. As a result, they revoked the order from COFEPRIS and ordered the return of the seized goods to the plaintiff.

This ruling applies only to the plaintiff who was a party to this case. However, if the same court issues five judgments with identical holdings, the decision would be binding nationally. This is the third such decision by the Second Chamber.

Plume Vapour Private Ltd. v. Union of India [India] [October 01, 2019]

Plume Vapor challenges the government's ordinance banning the sale of e-cigarettes and seeks a stay on the ban's implementation.  The government asserts that a stay at this interim stage before affidavits and hearing is inappropriate.  In an interim order, the Kolkata High Court refused to stay the ban, but stayed the requirement for sellers to prepare a list of their existing stock of e-cigarettes and submit such stock to authorities for disposal.

(Heard along with a similar challenge from Woke Vapors.)

Council for Harm Reduced Alternatives v. State of Karnataka [India] [August 27, 2019]

Council for Harm Reduced Alternatives (Council) challenged a June 15, 2016 Government of Karnataka circular that prohibits the manufacture, sale, distribution, trade, import, and advertisement of e-cigarettes.  Public health group, Verve Foundation Trust, intervened.  At an initial hearing, the court refused to stay implementation of the circular.  In a subsequent hearing, the court observed, "it is expressly clear that the petitioner which is . . . claiming to act in public interest is in fact espousing the cause of manufacturing units of ENDS."  The court further stated that the petitioner has abused the court's jurisdiction and wants only to lift Karnataka's ban on e-cigarettes to ensure that manufacturing companies are benefited.  Without ruling on the merits of the ban, the court accordingly dismissed the litigation and imposed costs on the Council in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Philippine Tobacco Institute v. City of Balanga, et al. [Philippines] [July 22, 2019]

The Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI), whose members include Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc. and JTI Philippines, Inc., challenged a City of Balanga ordinance making the City's 80-hectare University Town and its three kilometer radius "tobacco free," meaning the sale, use and marketing of tobacco products and e-cigarettes are banned. In July 2018, the Regional Trial Court declared the ordinance unconstitutional and invalid. The City appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court's decision. The Court of Appeals concluded that the ordinance was invalid because it went beyond the provisions of Republic Act No. 9211, a federal law. (The federal law prohibits smoking in specified places and the sale of tobacco products within 100 meters of schools, playgrounds, and other facilities frequented by minors. The City ordinance, on the other hand, prohibits selling, distributing, using, advertising, and promoting tobacco products within University Town and within a three-kilometer radius.) The City's Motion for Reconsideration was also denied.

Litejoy International v. Union of India [India] [July 11, 2019]

Litejoy International challenges a Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) order calling for enforcement of a Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Advisory instructing states to undertake a ban on the sale (including online sale), manufacture, distribution, trade, import and advertisement of e-cigarettes, among other products. On March 18, 2019, a single judge of the Delhi High Court stayed the DCGI order’s implementation, holding that e-cigarettes do not fall within the definition of a ‘drug’, as defined under section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.

(Heard along with M/S Focus Brands Trading v. Directorate General of Health Services, W.P. (C) 2688/2019 and Piush Ahluwalia v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 2735/2019.)

Jaunait Consulting v. México [Mexico] [July 02, 2019]

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) determined that electronic cigarettes cannot be banned under the interpretation of Article 16(VI) of the General Law on Tobacco Control, which states: "It is prohibited to trade, sell, distribute, display, promote or produce any object that is not a tobacco product which contains some of the brand elements or any type of design or auditory sign that identifies it with tobacco products." The Court found that this interpretation is unconstitutional since (i) the sale of tobacco products is allowed, and (ii) banning non-tobacco products without a proper justification violates the principles of equality, legality, proportionality, and non-discrimination.

This ruling applies only to the plaintiff who was a party to this case, Juanait Consulting. However, if the same court issues five judgments with identical holdings, the decision would be binding nationally. This is the such first decision by the First Chamber.