A poster for e-cigarettes showed a woman blowing vapor into a man’s face with the claim “SMOKING, REDEFINED”. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the ad was irresponsible because it could be confused with traditional tobacco smoking. The ASA found that the ad relied heavily on imagery associated with tobacco smoking and that viewers, especially children, may mistakenly believe that the product was a tobacco cigarette. The ASA ordered the ad not to appear again in its current form and ordered that the company should not indirectly promote tobacco smoking in the future.
ASA Adjudication on E-Cig Ltd, Complaint Ref: A14-278009 (2014).
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.
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.
"[I]rrespective of whether consumers recognised that the product was an e-cigarette, because the ad adopted imagery associated with tobacco smoking and presented it in a glamorous and aspirational way, we considered that it indirectly promoted tobacco smoking. Because we considered the ad did not make sufficiently clear that the product was an e-cigarette and, by appropriating the imagery of tobacco smoking and presenting it in a positive light, indirectly promoted tobacco smoking, we concluded that it was irresponsible."
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 poster for e-cigarettes showed a woman blowing vapor into a man’s face with the claim “SMOKING, REDEFINED”. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the ad was irresponsible because it could be confused with traditional tobacco smoking. The ASA found that the ad relied heavily on imagery associated with tobacco smoking and that viewers, especially children, may mistakenly believe that the product was a tobacco cigarette. The ASA ordered the ad not to appear again in its current form and ordered that the company should not indirectly promote tobacco smoking in the future.