"We considered that these claims, combined with references to the Government and its official resources, gave the impression that the MHRA had directly approved the products, and that they were specifically endorsed by the agency. Because the ad implied that the product was endorsed by the MHRA, which was not the case, we concluded that it breached the CAP Code."
ASA Ruling on Easytek Ltd t/a Vape Superstore
ASA Ruling on Easytek Ltd t/a Vape Store, Complaint Ref: A25-1284386 Easytek Ltd, (2025).
- United Kingdom
- Sep 3, 2025
- Advertising Standards Authority
Parties
Legislation Cited
Related Documents
Type of Litigation
Tobacco Control Topics
Substantive Issues
Type of Tobacco Product
"We welcomed Vape Superstore’s decision to remove the claim. However, because the ad implied that the product had undergone testing and safety assessments by the MHRA, when that was not the case, we concluded that the ad breached the CAP Code."
ASH Scotland challenged information on Easytek’s Vape Superstore website that stated its e-liquids “have been rigorously tested by the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) to ensure they meet the highest standards of safety.” Specifically, ASH Scotland challenged whether Easytek Ltd made misleading or unsubstantiated claims through its advertisements, and whether its advertisements implied that its products were approved or assessed by the MHRA.
Easytek admitted the claims may have misled customers and clarified there was no intent to suggest MHRA endorsement. They removed the misleading content when notified and committed to reviewing processes to prevent future occurrences. Despite these efforts, the ASA found that the ad breached Cap Code Rules 3.1 (Misleadingness), 3.7 (Substantiation), and 3.50 (Endorsements and testimonials) because MHRA does not conduct direct testing of products.