ASA Adjudication on Gallaher Ltd. (A12-213116)

Cancer Research UK made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about an ad from Gallaher Ltd that opposed plain packaging for tobacco. The ad made two claims: (1) that 23.3% of cigarettes smoked in London have unpaid taxes and (2) that 19% of independent shopkeepers in London are considering closing as a result of the illegal tobacco trade. The ASA found that the second claim in the ad had not been substantiated and was misleading and ordered the company not to repeat it.

ASA Adjudication on Gallaher Ltd., Complaint Ref: A12-213116 (2013).

  • United Kingdom
  • Aug 28, 2013
  • Advertising Standards Authority

Parties

Plaintiff Cancer Research UK

Defendant Gallaher Ltd

Legislation Cited

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code, Rule 3.1 (Misleading Advertising)

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code, Rule 3.7 (Substantiation)

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"We understood that the claim was based on the results of a TRA survey amongst its members who were asked whether they were considering closing down as a result of the effects of smuggling or cross-border shopping on tobacco sales. We noted that the results of that survey indicated that 19% of those asked were considering closing down for those reasons. However, we considered that the claim stated the reason for considering closing down was "as a direct result of the illegal tobacco trade" and no mention was given to the effects of cross-border shopping. We noted Gallaher's argument that that was unlikely to materially mislead readers, but we disagreed. We considered that the omission was significant and therefore the claim misrepresented the results of the survey. We noted that only independent shopkeepers who were TRA members were asked their views and that they represented 40% of the total number of independent shopkeepers in London. We considered that their views might not have been representative of the views of independent shopkeepers in London as a whole and we considered the ad did not make sufficiently clear that only TRA members had been surveyed. For those reasons, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading."