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.
ASA Adjudication on Cigirex Ltd, Complaint Ref: A11-179572 (2012).
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 a number of samples were tested and the test reports stated the levels of nicotine and tar in each sample. We noted most of the reports stated that, in terms of nicotine levels, the product was equivalent to either “mild smoking cigarettes” or “very mild smoking cigarettes”. We understood from their test reports that Cigirex contained tar and we considered that they implied that Cigirex delivered tobacco to the user - ingredients which the ad claimed were not present in Cigirex. We asked Cigirex to comment on the apparent discrepancy in the reports, but they did not do so. We noted the ad made clear that Cigirex contained nicotine and we understood from a previous ASA investigation that nicotine was addictive, raised blood pressure and was a vasoconstrictor, making it harder for the heart to pump through the constricted arteries, and caused the body to release its stores of fat and cholesterol into the blood. Because of that, we considered the presence of nicotine contradicted the claim that Cigirex was 100% safe. Moreover, we also considered that we had not seen evidence that demonstrated that Cigirex had no detrimental effect on the body, as was implied by the claim "100% safe". For those reasons, we considered the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.9 (Medicines, medical devices, health related products and beauty products)."
"The ASA welcomed that Cigirex had sought advice from the CAP Copy Advice team in respect of a number of different ads, but we noted that they had not sought advice in relation to the ad complained about. We understood the complainant believed Cigirex contained propylene glycol, which they believed was a chemical. Whilst Cigirex did not comment on the complainant's point, we understood that Cigirex's ingredients included nicotine, water, vegetable glycerine and flavours. We considered the claim "zero chemicals" was absolute, was capable of substantiation and we, therefore, expected Cigirex to hold suitable evidence. Because Cigirex had not commented on whether or not it contained propylene glycol, which we considered to be a chemical, we could not ascertain whether Cigirex was propylene glycol free. We noted, however, that it included nicotine, which we considered consumers were likely to consider to be a chemical. For those reasons, we considered that Cigirex should not make the claim "zero chemicals" and we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation)."
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.
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.