The UK Advertising Standards Authority received 13 complaints about an advertisement for Blu e-cigarettes that had appeared in the London Evening Standard in April 2016, with an image of the back of a nude woman holding an e-cigarette. The Council examined whether the advertisement violated provisions of the Committee on Advertising Practice Code on "harm and offense" (rule 4.1) and "social responsibility" (rule 1.3). It found that the image was not sexually explicit and therefore was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offense, and also that the ad had not been placed inappropriately. The Council concluded that the advertisement was not in breach of the CAP code.
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.
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.
The UK Advertising Standards Authority received 13 complaints about an advertisement for Blu e-cigarettes that had appeared in the London Evening Standard in April 2016, with an image of the back of a nude woman holding an e-cigarette. The Council examined whether the advertisement violated provisions of the Committee on Advertising Practice Code on "harm and offense" (rule 4.1) and "social responsibility" (rule 1.3). It found that the image was not sexually explicit and therefore was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offense, and also that the ad had not been placed inappropriately. The Council concluded that the advertisement was not in breach of the CAP code.