ASA Adjudication on ZULU Ventures Ltd

A television ad for e-cigarettes was found to be misleading by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) because it did not identify the type of product being advertised or whether it contained nicotine. On the other hand, the ASA did not find the ad irresponsible because it did not glamorize nicotine products or encourage inappropriate use. In the future, any advertising by the company must clearly identify that the product is an e-cigarette and that it contains nicotine. The ASA 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 ZULU Ventures Ltd, Complaint Ref A13-219713 (2013).

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

Parties

Plaintiff Private citizen (viewer)

Defendant ZULU Ventures LTD t/a Sky Cig

Legislation Cited

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

Committee of Advertising Practice Broadcast (BCAP) Code, Rule 10.3 (Tobacco)

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

Committee of Advertising Practice Broadcast (BCAP) Code, Rule 4.1 and 4.4 (Harm and Offence)

Committee of Advertising Practice Broadcast (BCAP) Code, Rule 5.3 (Children)

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

"The ASA noted the ad featured young adults undertaking day-to-day activities such as travelling and socialising, and featured an understated voice-over and chill-out style music. We considered the ad would not, therefore, be of particular appeal to younger children. Furthermore, we noted Clearcast had given the ad an 'ex-kids' restriction, which meant that it would not be broadcast around programmes of particular appeal to children. Notwithstanding that, we noted the ad did not identify the type of product being promoted and considered that was material information which was necessary for viewers if they 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 it contained nicotine, we concluded the ad was misleading."