A website for Juicemate, an e-cigarette brand, featured a page titled “Vape Affiliate Program”. The webpage featured linked text that people could click to enter their details and receive a unique referral link and discount codes. The page detailed the benefits of becoming an affiliate, which included a 20 per cent commission based on the total order placed with Juicemate using the affiliate link or discount code. The page also listed the names of vape brands whose products affiliates could choose to promote.
The ASA challenged whether the ad breached the CAP Code by irresponsibly encouraging the promotion of e-cigarettes and related components online, because unlicensed nicotine-containing e-liquids and their components could not be promoted in online media.
Pixus Online Ltd t/a Juicemate said they were not aware that there was an issue with an affiliate programme as they had seen them on other vaping websites. They removed the affiliate webpage on receiving notification of the ASA investigation.
The ASA found the ad encouraged people to become Juicemate Affiliates, who in turn would promote the sale of e-cigarettes and their components on the advertiser’s behalf on social media. The ad had the indirect effect of promoting the sale of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components, which were not licensed as medicines in online media, by means of the affiliate programme. By encouraging people to promote the sale of such products on social media, the ad incited prospective affiliates to breach the Code.
The CAP Code was breached and the ad must not appear again in the form investigated; and future marketing communications must not have the direct or indirect effect of promoting nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components, for example through the advertising of affiliate schemes.
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
Electronic and/or battery-operated devices designed to deliver an inhaled dose of nicotine or other substances. Examples include electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), electronic cigars, electronic cigarillos, electronic hookah, vaporizers, and vape pens. ENDS does not include any device or medication approved by the government as nicotine replacement therapy.
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.
"We considered the ad encouraged people to become Juicemate Affiliates, who in turn would
promote the sale of e-cigarettes and their components on the advertiser’s behalf on social
media, and consequently the restriction that applied to online media under rule 22.12 was
applicable. We therefore considered that meant the ad had the indirect effect of promoting the
sale of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components, which were not licensed as
medicines in online media, by means of the affiliate programme."
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.
A website for Juicemate, an e-cigarette brand, featured a page titled “Vape Affiliate Program”. The webpage featured linked text that people could click to enter their details and receive a unique referral link and discount codes. The page detailed the benefits of becoming an affiliate, which included a 20 per cent commission based on the total order placed with Juicemate using the affiliate link or discount code. The page also listed the names of vape brands whose products affiliates could choose to promote.
The ASA challenged whether the ad breached the CAP Code by irresponsibly encouraging the promotion of e-cigarettes and related components online, because unlicensed nicotine-containing e-liquids and their components could not be promoted in online media.
Pixus Online Ltd t/a Juicemate said they were not aware that there was an issue with an affiliate programme as they had seen them on other vaping websites. They removed the affiliate webpage on receiving notification of the ASA investigation.
The ASA found the ad encouraged people to become Juicemate Affiliates, who in turn would promote the sale of e-cigarettes and their components on the advertiser’s behalf on social media. The ad had the indirect effect of promoting the sale of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components, which were not licensed as medicines in online media, by means of the affiliate programme. By encouraging people to promote the sale of such products on social media, the ad incited prospective affiliates to breach the Code.
The CAP Code was breached and the ad must not appear again in the form investigated; and future marketing communications must not have the direct or indirect effect of promoting nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components, for example through the advertising of affiliate schemes.