An advertisement and website for e-cigarettes showed a hand dressed like Santa and claimed that the product is “recommended by Santa and pharmacies nationwide” and is “a harm reduction alternative to smoking.” The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that the claims “recommended by . . . pharmacies nationwide” and “a harm reduction alternative to smoking” were misleading and not supported by evidence. Although e-cigarettes are sold in a majority of pharmacies, the ad suggested that their products were endorsed or promoted by pharmacies, and the ASA had not seen evidence to support this claim. The ASA also ruled that the reference to Santa was not irresponsible because the ads were not primarily targeted at children and merely depicted Santa’s hand. The ASA ordered that the ads must not appear again in their current form and the company’s future advertising must not include the disputed claims unless substantiated with robust evidence.
ASA Adjudication on Vapourlites Ltd, Complaint Ref: A13-252488 (2014).
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.
"We acknowledged Vapourlites' reference to ASH's briefing on electronic cigarettes and their comments that electronic cigarettes contained significantly less amounts of chemicals than traditional cigarettes and for that reason, were less harmful. However, they did not provide any robust clinical evidence to support the claim that their electronic cigarettes were "A HARM REDUCTION ALTERNATIVE TO SMOKING" and therefore, we concluded that the claim was misleading and unsubstantiated."
"We acknowledged Vapourlites stated they were the largest supplier of electronic cigarettes to independent pharmacies and that they held 60% of the market share in that particular sector. However, we considered that the claim "RECOMMENDED BY ... PHARMACIES NATIONWIDE", suggested that their products were endorsed or promoted by both independent pharmacies and pharmacy chains. We had not seen evidence to support this claim and concluded that it was unsubstantiated and 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.
An advertisement and website for e-cigarettes showed a hand dressed like Santa and claimed that the product is “recommended by Santa and pharmacies nationwide” and is “a harm reduction alternative to smoking.” The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that the claims “recommended by . . . pharmacies nationwide” and “a harm reduction alternative to smoking” were misleading and not supported by evidence. Although e-cigarettes are sold in a majority of pharmacies, the ad suggested that their products were endorsed or promoted by pharmacies, and the ASA had not seen evidence to support this claim. The ASA also ruled that the reference to Santa was not irresponsible because the ads were not primarily targeted at children and merely depicted Santa’s hand. The ASA ordered that the ads must not appear again in their current form and the company’s future advertising must not include the disputed claims unless substantiated with robust evidence.