ASA Adjudication on CIGIREX

A print ad for e-cigarettes claimed that the product is a “carcinogen-free nicotine oral delivery system” with “none of the tar and tobacco found in a regular tobacco cigarette” and that it “may help you stop smoking tobacco cigarettes.” The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found the ad misleading because: (1) it exaggerated the benefits of the product by implying that there were no detrimental effects from its use and (2) it made medicinal claims (e.g., that the product was a way to stop smoking) without prior authorization. The ASA ordered that the ad should not appear again in its current form.

ASA Adjudication on CIGIREX, Complaint Ref: 136940 (2010).

  • United Kingdom
  • Dec 22, 2010
  • Advertising Standards Authority
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff A reader

Defendant CIGIREX

Legislation Cited

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP Code), Edition 11, Clause 3.1 (Substantiation)

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP Code), Edition 11, Clause 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies)

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP Code), Edition 11, Clause 50.11 (Medicines)

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP Code), Edition 11, Clause 7.1 (Truthfulness)

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

"We noted the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) regarded products that helped overcome tobacco smoking addiction as medicinal. We understood that CIGIREX was an alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes, but nonetheless considered that claims, such as "Today is the first day of rest [sic] of your life. It is time to say NO to being addicted to tobacco cigarettes. If you are among this group, then take your first steps to taking charge of your life, your destiny and your future. CIGIREX along with Together Against Cancer ... invites you to take the CIGIREX Challenge to live tobacco and tar free!", "They will send you ... a special certificate that commemorates the day that you took your first step to freedom and living tobacco-free ..." and "[CIGIREX] may help you stop smoking tobacco cigarettes in a very short period of time with none of the side effects", gave a strong impression that the product was a way to stop smoking and overcome addiction, and therefore, by definition, medicinal. We noted the CAP Code required marketers making medicinal claims to hold relevant marketing authorisation and, because we understood that CIGIREX did not, we considered that the ad had made medicinal claims for an unauthorised product. We therefore concluded that, on this point, the ad was misleading."
"We considered that it was clear from the ad that the product contained nicotine and understood that CIGIREX were likely to be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes. However, we also considered that claims, such as "... nicotine is delivered to your bloodstream without tar, tobacco and thousands of carcinogens associated with traditional cigarettes ...", "CIGIREX removes these harmful ingredients associated with traditional cigarettes ...", "... a carcinogen-free nicotine oral delivery system ...", "... none of the tar and tobacco found in a regular tobacco cigarette" and "It is time to say NO to being addicted to tobacco cigarettes", implied that there were no detrimental effects from using CIGIREX. Nonetheless, we understood 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. We noted that we had not seen any scientific evidence to support the impression created by the ad that CIGIREX had none of the damaging effects of smoking tobacco cigarettes and considered that the ad had exaggerated the benefits of the product. We therefore concluded that, on this point, the ad was misleading."
"The ASA understood that CIGIREX did not sell the car charger, but noted the CAP Code required marketers to hold evidence to prove all claims capable of objective substantiation before submitting an ad for publication. We noted the link to a website selling the charger, but did not consider that that on its own was sufficient substantiation to support the claim that it had a value of £29. Because we had not seen suitable evidence to show that the car charger generally sold for £29, we considered that the ad was misleading on this point. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness)."