Relx, an e-cigarette company, paid for an ad to be placed on a third-party website. The ad pictured e-cigarettes and discounted pricing information. UK regulations clearly prohibit online advertising of e-cigarettes but allow a manufacturer to provide factual product information such as the name, content, and price of the product on its own websites. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) reviewed the ad and concluded that the marketing was not targeted exclusively to the trade and prominently featured four nicotine-containing e-cigarettes. Thus, it had the direct or indirect effect of promoting nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components which were not licensed as medicines. The ASA ordered that the ad not appear again in the form complained about.
ASA Ruling on Relx (UK) Ltd., Internet (display), Complaint Ref: A23-1194613 Relx (UK) Ltd (2023).
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
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 acknowledged Relx’s comments regarding their memberships and advertising policy. However, the paid-for ad on the Daily Motion website was not targeted exclusively to the trade and prominently featured four nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, which were not licensed as medicines. The ad featured the Relx logo and an image of e-cigarettes and was published in online media which we considered was promotional. We welcomed Relx’s assurance that the ad had been removed and that existing and upcoming advertising would abide by the Code. However, since the ad had the direct or indirect effect of promoting e-cigarettes which were not licensed as medicines in nonpermitted media, we concluded that it breached the Code."
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.
Relx, an e-cigarette company, paid for an ad to be placed on a third-party website. The ad pictured e-cigarettes and discounted pricing information. UK regulations clearly prohibit online advertising of e-cigarettes but allow a manufacturer to provide factual product information such as the name, content, and price of the product on its own websites. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) reviewed the ad and concluded that the marketing was not targeted exclusively to the trade and prominently featured four nicotine-containing e-cigarettes. Thus, it had the direct or indirect effect of promoting nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components which were not licensed as medicines. The ASA ordered that the ad not appear again in the form complained about.