The UK Advertising Standards Authority received 13 complaints about an advertisement for Blu e-cigarettes that had appeared in the London Evening Standard in April 2016, with an image of the back of a nude woman holding an e-cigarette. The Council examined whether the advertisement violated provisions of the Committee on Advertising Practice Code on "harm and offense" (rule 4.1) and "social responsibility" (rule 1.3). It found that the image was not sexually explicit and therefore was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offense, and also that the ad had not been placed inappropriately. The Council concluded that the advertisement was not in breach of the CAP code.
ASA Ruling on Fontem Ventures BV, Complaint Ref: A16-340739 (2016).
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.
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 considered that the ad was sensual and sexually suggestive, but was not sexually explicit. It had appeared on the front of the London Evening Standard, a free newspaper, and would therefore have been seen by a large number of people not restricted to those who chose to read the paper, including children. However, because of the relatively mild nature of the image we did not consider that it was unsuitable to be seen by children in this context and we therefore concluded that the ad had not been placed inappropriately."
"The ad featured an image of a model who was naked and holding an e-cigarette with large text stating “JUST YOU & blu E-cigarettes”. The image was cropped so that the top of her buttocks were visible. The ASA considered that the tone of the ad was sensual and sexually suggestive, but was not sexually explicit. Whilst we understood that some readers might find the ad distasteful because it depicted nudity which was not directly relevant to the product advertised, we did not consider that the ad portrayed the model as a sexual object. We therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence."
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 UK Advertising Standards Authority received 13 complaints about an advertisement for Blu e-cigarettes that had appeared in the London Evening Standard in April 2016, with an image of the back of a nude woman holding an e-cigarette. The Council examined whether the advertisement violated provisions of the Committee on Advertising Practice Code on "harm and offense" (rule 4.1) and "social responsibility" (rule 1.3). It found that the image was not sexually explicit and therefore was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offense, and also that the ad had not been placed inappropriately. The Council concluded that the advertisement was not in breach of the CAP code.