ASA Adjudication on West Sussex Primary Care Trust
An anti-smoking pamphlet in a doctor’s office contained a number of claims, including that (1) tobacco companies actively target young people; (2) tobacco companies give out free cigarettes to children; and (3) NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) can help people quit smoking. The Advertisings Standards Authority (ASA) found the first and third claims misleading and ordered the ad not to be broadcast again in its current form. Specifically, the ASA found that the company which created the pamphlet provided insufficient evidence of active targeting of young people in the UK especially because most tobacco advertising and promotion are prohibited in that region. Additionally, the claim about NRT was misleading because it implied that people would be able to stop smoking permanently, rather than for at least four weeks, which was the reference period used by the company. The ASA did not find the claim about free distribution of cigarettes to children to be misleading because the company provided evidence of such practices in developing countries.
ASA Adjudication on West Sussex Primary Care Trust, Complaint Ref: 102840 (2010).
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.
A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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 noted the definition used by Well Fit as the basis for their claims for NRTs success rate. We considered, however, that readers were likely to expect that the references to stopping smoking were based on more permanent cessation and not merely the four-week period used under the NHS definition. We therefore concluded that the ad was likely to mislead."
"We noted the evidence sent by Well Fit and considered that it supported their assertion that there had been instances of tobacco companies distributing free cigarettes to children and young people in developing countries. We concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead."
"The ASA noted the ad stated "tobacco companies actively target young people ..." and considered that readers were likely to infer that that warning was relevant to them and the current circumstances in the UK. We noted legislation currently prohibited tobacco advertising and other direct forms of promotion but noted what Well Fit characterised as indirect forms of promotion through point of sale displays and packaging were still permitted. We noted Well Fits argument that such materials could be considered active forms of targeting. However, although we acknowledged that they could be seen by and potentially influence young people, we considered that readers were unlikely to regard such promotional methods as active targeting of young people. We also noted the evidence Well Fit provided relating to other countries and, in particular, the third world, where they maintained that there was clear evidence of active targeting. We considered, however, that such evidence was not relevant to the UK market and therefore did not support the likely inference of the claim. Because we had not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that "tobacco companies actively target young people" in the UK, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead."
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 anti-smoking pamphlet in a doctor’s office contained a number of claims, including that (1) tobacco companies actively target young people; (2) tobacco companies give out free cigarettes to children; and (3) NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) can help people quit smoking. The Advertisings Standards Authority (ASA) found the first and third claims misleading and ordered the ad not to be broadcast again in its current form. Specifically, the ASA found that the company which created the pamphlet provided insufficient evidence of active targeting of young people in the UK especially because most tobacco advertising and promotion are prohibited in that region. Additionally, the claim about NRT was misleading because it implied that people would be able to stop smoking permanently, rather than for at least four weeks, which was the reference period used by the company. The ASA did not find the claim about free distribution of cigarettes to children to be misleading because the company provided evidence of such practices in developing countries.