ASA Adjudication on ZULU Ventures Ltd

A poster on a commuter train advertised e-cigarettes. In response to a complaint, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) investigated whether the ad was irresponsible because it was placed in a location likely to be seen by children. The ASA found that the ad did not violate the country’s advertising code because e-cigarettes are legal products and are allowed to be advertised. Additionally, the ASA found that trains were not likely to carry a high percentage of children and the ad, which mostly contained text, did not contain any images likely to be particularly attractive to children.

ASA Adjudication on ZULU Ventures Ltd, Complaint Ref: A13-240201 (2013).

  • United Kingdom
  • Nov 20, 2013
  • Advertising Standards Authority
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Unidentified complainant

Defendant ZULU Ventures Ltd t/a SkyCig

Legislation Cited

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code, Edition 12, Rule 1.3 (Social responsibility)

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

"The ASA noted the ad appeared on a commuter train, which we understood from the complainant was used by children as part of the school route. However, we noted that the ad appeared on the Southeastern trains network and not simply on this route, and that evidence suggested that trains were a mode of transport which were not likely to carry a high percentage of children. We therefore considered that the ad did not appear in a place where it was likely to be seen by a high percentage of children. We further noted the ad comprised mostly text and did not contain any image or content that was likely to be particularly attractive to children. We noted the complainants' concerns about the ads promoting the use of e-cigarettes. However, electronic cigarettes could be sold legally in the UK, were not a prohibited category under the CAP Code and were therefore permitted to be advertised, within the confines of the CAP Code. ... We considered that, because the ad was clearly for a non-tobacco product, it was unlikely to be seen as encouraging or normalising tobacco smoking to children or adults. We therefore concluded that the ad did not breach the Code."