A print ad for e-cigarettes claimed that the product contains “Zero chemicals” and is “100% Safe.” The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found the ad to be misleading on both counts and ordered that the ad should not appear again in its current form. The ASA noted that the product contained nicotine, which it believed was likely to be considered a chemical by consumers. Additionally, the company was not able to provide evidence of whether the product contained propylene glycol, which the ASA considered a chemical. Therefore, the ASA found the claim “zero chemicals” to be misleading. Because the product contained nicotine, which the ASA found has detrimental effects on the body, the claim “100% safe” was also misleading.
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 claimed that the product contains “Zero chemicals” and is “100% Safe.” The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found the ad to be misleading on both counts and ordered that the ad should not appear again in its current form. The ASA noted that the product contained nicotine, which it believed was likely to be considered a chemical by consumers. Additionally, the company was not able to provide evidence of whether the product contained propylene glycol, which the ASA considered a chemical. Therefore, the ASA found the claim “zero chemicals” to be misleading. Because the product contained nicotine, which the ASA found has detrimental effects on the body, the claim “100% safe” was also misleading.