A series of print ads by a tobacco company claimed that the British government had rejected a proposal to require plain packaging of cigarettes in 2008 due to lack of evidence. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found the tobacco company ads to be misleading because the word “rejected” overstated the government’s actions. Instead, the ASA found that the government had kept the proposal for plain packaging under review to be considered at a later date. However, the ASA found that the tobacco company did back up its claim that there was a lack of evidence in 2008 that plain packaging would prevent young people from starting to smoke. The ASA ordered the tobacco company not to claim that the government had “rejected” the policy of plain packaging for cigarettes in 2008.
ASA Adjudication on Gallaher Ltd, Complaint Ref: A12-208266 (2014).
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.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
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.
A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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 that at some points the quotes provided by JTI dealt with the issue of what evidence existed in support of plain packaging in 2008/2009. In May 2009, Baroness Thornton had stated "Evidence presented during the tobacco consultation suggests that the packaging of tobacco products may encourage young people to start smoking and may undermine health messages about the dangers of smoking. We want to strengthen and build on this evidence base." That statement appeared to imply that at the time of the 2008 Consultation and shortly after the Government believed that some evidence did exist in support of plain packaging, but not enough to support its introduction.
We acknowledged, however, that some of the other quotes could be interpreted differently, so as to imply that at least some types of evidence were altogether lacking at that time. On that point, the DH commented that a range of factors, including the circumstances, the audience addressed and the type of evidence under discussion, could lead to the expression of apparently different positions on that subject, but reiterated that in 2008/9 the Government had considered only that there was not sufficient evidence to support the introduction of plain packaging.
We noted that the Government had not taken forward and built into law proposals for plain packaging at the same time as other measures considered under the 2008 Consultation. We considered that JTI had substantiated that there was in 2008 a lack of credible evidence that plain packaging would prevent young people from starting to smoke. However, we considered that readers of the ads would be likely to interpret the use of the word "rejected" to describe that decision as a more categorical action than had in fact been taken, and as implying a degree of finality in 2008 greater than was in fact the case. We therefore considered that the claims in the ads that the policy had been "rejected" in 2008 because of a lack of credible evidence gave a misleading impression of the position and action taken at that time by the Government and concluded that the ads breached the Code in that respect."
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 series of print ads by a tobacco company claimed that the British government had rejected a proposal to require plain packaging of cigarettes in 2008 due to lack of evidence. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found the tobacco company ads to be misleading because the word “rejected” overstated the government’s actions. Instead, the ASA found that the government had kept the proposal for plain packaging under review to be considered at a later date. However, the ASA found that the tobacco company did back up its claim that there was a lack of evidence in 2008 that plain packaging would prevent young people from starting to smoke. The ASA ordered the tobacco company not to claim that the government had “rejected” the policy of plain packaging for cigarettes in 2008.