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.
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 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.