However, we considered that the presentation of the information, using large text in capital letters, on bright coloured backgrounds, went beyond objective, factual claims and incentivised consumers to buy by placing an emphasis on the price.
ASA Adjudication on Golden Vape UK Ltd
ASA Ruling on Golden Vape UK Ltd, Complaint Ref : A25-1309216 (2026).
- United Kingdom
- Feb 11, 2026
- Advertising Standards Authority
Parties
Legislation Cited
Related Documents
Type of Litigation
Tobacco Control Topics
Substantive Issues
Type of Tobacco Product
We considered that Buy X Get Y Free claims were promotional in nature, as they provided an incentive for consumers to buy by including the benefit of free products. We therefore considered that the claims in ads (a), (b) and (g) went beyond factual descriptions of the products sold by Golden Vape.
We considered that the claims "SPECIAL BUNDLE OFFERS" in ad (a), "SPECIAL MIX & MATCH OFFERS" in ad (d), "LIMITED TIME OFFER" and "SPECIAL MIX & MATCH OFFERS" in ad (e), "LIMITED OFFER" and "Mix & Match Offers" in ad (f), and "Hurry! Limited-Time Offer You don't wanna miss this!" in ad (g) were used to suggest that the prices displayed were promotional offers intended to encourage users to purchase products from Golden Vape. We therefore considered that the claims in ads (a), (d), (e), (f) and (g) went beyond factual descriptions of the products sold by Golden Vape and that they were promotional in nature.
The UK Vaping Industry Association Ltd. challenged whether a series of eBay ads by Golden Vape breached the Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code). The CAP Code reflected the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations which banned the advertising of unlicensed nicotine-containing e-cigarettes in online media. While promotional content was prohibited under the Code, an exception existed for “factual information” published online if under the marketer’s control.
Golden Vape’s eight ads included statements like “Special Bundle Offers” and “Limited Time Offer” and “Buy 6 Get 6 Free.” Golden Vape alleged that their ads were merely factual in nature, which would qualify for the exception.
However, the ASA concluded that the specific content in question went beyond mere factual descriptions and was instead promotional in nature. The ASA concluded the ads must not appear again in the form complained of.