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.
Imiracle (HK) Ltd t/a ELFBAR placed two ads for ELFBAR e-cigarettes: a digital billboard and poster on the side of a bus. The ads stated “RECYCLING FOR A GREENER FUTURE GreenAwareness” followed by the recycling symbol. Two e-cigarettes were pictured, with the text “NEW ELFBAR 600V2 IS AVAILABLE NOW”. The ten complainants (including Adfree Cities and Imperial Tobacco Ltd.), who understood that the products were single-use e-cigarettes and not widely recyclable, challenged whether the ads: (1) were misleading because they did not make clear there were only limited recycling options for the products; (2) misled about the environmental benefit that the products offered; and (3) misleadingly highlighted an environmental benefit that resulted from a legal obligation to which competing products were also subject.
First, the ASA concluded that the ads were misleading. The ASA acknowledged ELFBAR’s intention was for the ads to educate and encourage consumers to recycle, and that they would be undertaking initiatives that would increase consumers’ ability to do so. However, consumers would understand from the ads that they would be able to recycle the single-use e-cigarettes through a wide variety of routes including by easily accessible routes such as home recycling provisions and that was not the case.
Second, the ASA concluded that the inaccurate impression that the products were fully recyclable combined with the claim "for a greener future" exaggerated the environmental benefit of the products and was therefore likely to mislead consumers.
Third, the ASA concluded that that ELFBAR was not unique in relation to its initiatives relating to recycling and noted that competitors had the same obligations in relation to the funding of take-back for recycling. Therefore, the ads misleadingly highlighted an environmental benefit that resulted from a legal obligation to which competing products were also subject.
For these reasons, the CAP Code was breached, and the ads must not appear again in the forms complained of.