ASA Adjudication on Nicocigs Ltd. (A12-207775)

A website for an e-cigarette company made the claim that nicotine is “completely harmless”. The Advertising Standards Authority said the ad must not appear again in its current form because there was not enough evidence for the claim that the product is harmless and the ad was therefore misleading. The company was ordered to ensure that it does not claim that products are harmless in the future without adequate evidence.

ASA Adjudication on Nicocigs Ltd, Complaint Ref: A12-207775 (2013).

  • United Kingdom
  • Jan 16, 2013
  • Advertising Standards Authority

Parties

Plaintiff Unidentified complainant

Defendant Nicocigs 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

"The ASA noted the evidence Nicolites submitted, which took the form of literature reviews or references to individual ingredients in the product and also made reference to studies involving animals. Although we did not see any studies in their entirety, we noted one of the documents referred to a trial related to vaporising propylene glycol and children but were concerned about the small scale of the study, the fact it was not on the target audience of the claims, which we presumed to be adults, as well as about whether the ingredient tested reflected the make-up of the advertised product itself. It was also unclear whether the inhalation method used reflected that users of the product would experience. In addition, we noted the toxicology risk assessment, which also did not take the form of a controlled clinical trial, concluded that the e-cigarette was unlikely to pose a risk to health over and above that of cigarettes. We considered, however, the implication of the ad, via claims such as "it's simply a completely harmless vapour" and "poses no health hazard …" was that the product would pose no risks to health at all. For the reasons given, we considered the claims that the product was not harmful had not been substantiated and we therefore concluded that the ad was misleading."