ASA Adjudication on Ten Motives Ltd

A television ad for e-cigarettes featured animated images of day-to-day activities and objects such as a young family, a beach vacation, and a TV. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found the ad misleading because it did not make clear what product was being sold and that the product contained nicotine. However, the ASA said the ad was not socially irresponsible because it did not encourage the harmful use of a nicotine product. The ASA ordered that the ad should not appear again in its current form. The agency noted that the ad was broadcast before the government announced its intention to regulate e-cigarettes as medicines, which are subject to different advertising rules.

ASA Adjudication on Ten Motives Ltd, Complaint Ref: A13-230598 (2013).

  • United Kingdom
  • Sep 25, 2013
  • Advertising Standards Authority
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Private citizen (viewer)

Defendant Ten Motives Ltd

Legislation Cited

Committe of Advertising Practice Broadcast (BCAP) Code, Rule 1.2 (Social Responsibility)

Committee of Advertising Practice Broadcast (BCAP) Code, Rule 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading Advertising)

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

"The ASA noted the ad featured various images of everyday objects along with an image of a young family. We considered that although those images were animated, they were not displayed in such a way that they were likely to be particularly attractive to younger children and further noted the ad had been given an ex-kids restriction, which meant it would not be broadcast around programmes that were of particular appeal to children. However, we noted the ad did not identify the type of product being promoted and considered that this was significant material information which was necessary for viewers if they then wished to find out more. ... We considered it important that ads such as this made clear the nature of the product being advertised and stated whether or not it contained nicotine. We judged that to be material information the consumer needed to know in order to avoid the likelihood of being misled. Because the ad did not make clear the nature of the product being advertised and did not state that the product contained nicotine, we concluded that the ad was misleading."