ASA Adjudication on Health & Beauty Innovations Ltd

A website for NicoBloc said that the product could help with nicotine addiction by blocking up to 99% of nicotine and tar. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that the ads violated the country’s Advertising Code because they claimed that the product could be used to treat nicotine addiction without being a licensed medical device. The ASA also concluded that the tests used to determine the product’s ability to block nicotine and tar were not sufficient to support the ad’s claims and the ads were therefore misleading. The ASA ordered the company not to use the ads again in their current form and required the company to provide robust documentary evidence to support smoking cessations claims in the future. 

ASA Adjudication on Health & Beauty Innovations Ltd, Complaint Ref: A14-266848 (2014).

  • United Kingdom
  • Oct 29, 2014
  • Advertising Standards Authority
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Unidentified complainants

Defendant Health & Beauty Innovations Ltd

Legislation Cited

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP Code), Edition 12, Rule 3.7 (Substantiation)

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP Code), Edition 12, Rules 12.1 and 12.11 (Medicines, medical devices, health related products and beauty products)

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code, Rule 3.1 (Misleading Advertising)

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"The ad stated "NicoBloc reduces the amount of nicotine and tar you inhale from your own brand of cigarettes" and made claims that one drop of NicoBloc to the filter of a cigarette blocked 33% of nicotine and tar; two drops blocked 66% of nicotine and tar; and three drops blocked up to 99% of nicotine and 99% of tar. In that context, we considered consumers would understand that NicoBloc would block up to 99% of nicotine in a representative sample of cigarettes used by consumers in the UK. We considered consumers would understand the distinction between the "up to" claim made in respect of three drops of NicoBloc blocking 99% of nicotine and the additional performance claims which did not include the "up to" claim. We considered consumers would understand the performance claims that did not include the claim 'up to' were absolute claims that the product would reduce nicotine and tar content to the extent stated in the ad in the cigarettes used by consumers in the UK. ... We considered the first test report, conducted in accordance with ISO 10315:2013, produced robust results as to the nicotine content in cigarette smoke condensates when using NicoBloc. However, we considered the ad presented the performance claims as being representative of the performance level that would be achieved in cigarettes used by consumers in the UK. We were concerned that we had not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that and therefore concluded that the performance claims had not been substantiated."