A print ad for e-cigarettes included the text “The Safer Smoking Alternative” and “Healthier.” The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) evaluated whether the ad was misleading. In its defense, the company said that the ad appeared only once, that it would not be repeated in the future, and that they were working with a new advertising agency. Nevertheless, the ASA found the ad misleading because the claims in the ad could be understood to mean that e-cigarettes were less harmful than smoking. The ASA ordered the company not to claim that products were “safer” or “healthier” than smoking in the future without adequate evidence.
ASA Adjudication on Nicocigs Ltd, Complaint Ref: A13-219974 (2013).
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.
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.
"[W]e considered the claims "THE SAFER SMOKING ALTERNATIVE" and "HEALTHIER No tobacco, tar or carbon monoxide" were nevertheless likely to be understood to mean the product was less harmful than smoking, if not that it was not harmful. We noted Nicocigs did not submit evidence in support of the current claims, but that they had done so in a previous ASA investigation into an ad that included claims that the product was not harmful. ... For the reasons given, we considered the claims in the current ad had also not been substantiated and we therefore concluded that the ad was misleading."
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 print ad for e-cigarettes included the text “The Safer Smoking Alternative” and “Healthier.” The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) evaluated whether the ad was misleading. In its defense, the company said that the ad appeared only once, that it would not be repeated in the future, and that they were working with a new advertising agency. Nevertheless, the ASA found the ad misleading because the claims in the ad could be understood to mean that e-cigarettes were less harmful than smoking. The ASA ordered the company not to claim that products were “safer” or “healthier” than smoking in the future without adequate evidence.