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).
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.
"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."
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 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.