ASA Adjudication on Must Have Ltd t/a VIP Electronic Cigarette

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received more than 1,000 complaints about two commercials for e-cigarettes featuring a man and a woman, respectively, making reference to oral sex. The ASA found that the ads were sexually provocative and should have been aired only after 11 pm rather than allowed to air after 9 pm. In the future, the ASA ordered the company not to broadcast the ads before 11 pm and to ensure that the ads were not likely to cause serious or widespread offence. The ASA did not uphold other complaints about the ads, finding that the ads were not likely to be viewed as degrading or exploiting women, did not encourage smoking or the harmful use of nicotine products, did not promote the product to young viewers, and made clear that the product contained nicotine.

ASA Adjudication on Must Have Ltd, Complaint Ref: A13-249268 (2014).

  • United Kingdom
  • Feb 26, 2014
  • Advertising Standards Authority
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Unidentified complainants

Defendant Must Have Ltd t/a VIP Electronic Cigarette

Legislation Cited

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code, Edition 12, Rule 1.3 (Social responsibility)

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code, Edition 12, Rule 4.1 (Harm and Offence)

Committee of Advertising Practice Broadcast (BCAP) Code, Rule 1.2 (Social Responsibility)

Committee of Advertising Practice Broadcast (BCAP) Code, Rules 32.1 and 32.3 (Scheduling)

Committee of Advertising Practice Broadcast (BCAP) Code, Rules 4.1 and 4.2 (Harm and Offence)

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

"The ASA acknowledged the complainants' concerns that the presentation of the ads included implied references to oral sex. We noted the ads contained no explicit sexual imagery and concluded by revealing that the commentary related to an e-cigarette. However, we considered the sexually provocative presentation of the male and female characters in conjunction with a graphic description of oral sex was likely to cause serious and widespread offence to viewers who viewed ads (a) and (c) during normal evening viewing. We acknowledged the post-21:00 timing restriction would reduce the risk of younger children seeing ads (a) and (c), but because of the references to oral sex, we considered a post-21:00 timing restriction was not sufficient to avoid offending viewers and that a post-23:00 timing restriction should have been applied. On that basis, we concluded that ads (a) and (c) breached the Code."