An email advertised the online sale of inexpensive cigarettes. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that the ad violated the country’s advertising code, which prohibits tobacco product advertising. The ASA ordered the company not to advertise tobacco products to the public.
ASA Adjudication on Price Paradise Ltd, Complaint Ref: A13-236086 (2013).
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.
"The ASA was concerned by Price Paradise's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in the future. We considered that the ad strongly implied that tobacco products were being marketed directly to the general public and, due to the lack of evidence to show this was not the case, we concluded that the ad breached the Code. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 21.1 (Tobacco, rolling papers and filters)."
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.
An email advertised the online sale of inexpensive cigarettes. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that the ad violated the country’s advertising code, which prohibits tobacco product advertising. The ASA ordered the company not to advertise tobacco products to the public.