The website for an e-cigarette company indicated that e-cigarettes had been advertised on various news sources, such as the BBC. The ad also included the claim “Smoke Anywhere” and a “Quality Assurance” statement. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that the ad was misleading because (1) the company didn’t explain the context for the news sources’ supposed endorsement of e-cigarettes; (2) contrary to the ad’s claim, it is not always possible to use e-cigarettes; and (3) the claim about “Quality Assurance” might lead people to believe that e-cigarettes are approved and regulated, which they are not. The ASA ordered that the ad should not appear again in its current form.
ASA Adjudication on Desert Point Ltd, Complaint Ref: A12-199372 (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 acknowledged that explanatory text appeared alongside the CE, RoHS and SGS logos. However, we considered the explanatory text and the heading "QUALITY ASSURANCE - All ClearSmoke products are subjected to strict quality control and industry assessments" was ambiguous in that it could suggest ClearSmoke products had been assessed and approved. E-cigarettes were not, however, regulated by the MHRA and were not approved by them. Because the status of e-cigarettes was that they were unregulated, and because we considered that the heading "QUALITY ASSURANCE" and the text that followed, "All ClearSmoke products are subjected to strict quality control and industry assessments", in conjunction with the logos, was ambiguous and could suggest that they were approved and regulated, which was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading."
"We considered that the way in which the wording of the quotations had been selected went beyond simple factual statements about how e-cigarettes functioned and, instead, suggested that the authors or organisations were strongly in favour of the use of e-cigarettes as an alternative to smoking conventional cigarettes. Desert Point had not supplied the articles in full, but we understood that the full text of the Daily Mail article was titled "Boston becomes latest U.S. city to ban electronic cigarettes in the workplace and for under-18s" and began "[electronic cigarette users] insist the devices ..." before it continued in the way quoted in the ad. We considered that the full text suggested a more cautious or questioning position on the use of e-cigarettes than the extracts used by Desert Point suggested. We did not consider that the disclaimer, which appeared some distance away from the quotations and was considerably smaller, was sufficient to correct the suggestion. Because of that, we concluded that the way in which the quotations had been used was misleading."
"Advice published on www.nhs.uk acknowledged that e-cigarettes had increased in popularity but was cautious with regard to the health risks associated with using them. It stated that the vapour was "potentially less harmful" than tobacco smoke; that e-cigarettes may be safer than conventional cigarettes but that we didn't yet know the long-term effects of the vapour on the body. The advice stated that clinical trials were in progress to test the quality, safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes but, until they were complete, the UK Government could not give any advice on them or recommend their use. The NHS advice also contained a link to www.ash.org.uk, which also contained cautiously-worded advice regarding the health risks associated with using e-cigarettes. The claim was worded "... you can enjoy them safely, anywhere you want". We considered that suggested the use of e-cigarettes was permitted where smoking conventional cigarettes was not, such as inside public buildings, workplaces, etc. We understood, however, that, regardless of the legal position on the use of e-cigarettes compared with smoking conventional cigarettes, policy on whether the use of e-cigarettes was actually allowed varied between organisations, employers, etc. meaning that, while it might not be illegal to use e-cigarettes, it was not always allowed in all situations. We welcomed Desert Point's willingness to amend the claim but, because they had not supplied evidence that supported an unqualified safety claim and which demonstrated it was possible to use e-cigarettes in all situations, and because we did not consider the disclaimer was sufficient to correct the understanding of the claim, we concluded that the investigated claim was misleading."
"Whether the claim referred to the ClearSmoke brand or e-cigarettes generally, Desert Point had not explained the context in which the product was claimed to have been advertised or featured on the BBC, Sky News and itv1 and had not supplied evidence to substantiate the claim. Because of that, the ASA concluded that the claim was 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 website for an e-cigarette company indicated that e-cigarettes had been advertised on various news sources, such as the BBC. The ad also included the claim “Smoke Anywhere” and a “Quality Assurance” statement. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that the ad was misleading because (1) the company didn’t explain the context for the news sources’ supposed endorsement of e-cigarettes; (2) contrary to the ad’s claim, it is not always possible to use e-cigarettes; and (3) the claim about “Quality Assurance” might lead people to believe that e-cigarettes are approved and regulated, which they are not. The ASA ordered that the ad should not appear again in its current form.