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).
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)
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.
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.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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.
"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."
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 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.