ASA Ruling on Imiracle (HK) Ltd t/a ELFBAR
ASA Ruling on Imiracle (HK) Ltd t/a ELFBAR, Poster, Complaint Ref. G23-1208624 (2023).
- United Kingdom
- Nov 29, 2023
- Advertising Standards Authority
ASA Ruling on Imiracle (HK) Ltd t/a ELFBAR, Poster, Complaint Ref. G23-1208624 (2023).
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.