A website for JAC Vapour, an e-cigarette retailer, featured a JAC Ambassador webpage with a contact form into which people could enter their details to receive a unique affiliate link and discount code. The page detailed the benefits of becoming an Ambassador, which included a cut of the value of orders placed with JAC Vapour using the affiliate link, and a 10% discount code for family and friends. The page also gave tips for sharing the affiliate link and discount code on social media.
The ASA challenged whether the ad breached the CAP Code by irresponsibly encouraging the promotion of e-cigarettes and related components online, because unlicensed nicotine-containing e-liquids and their components could not be promoted in online media.
Magflo Ltd t/a JAC Vapour said the original intention of the JAC Ambassador programme was to enable existing JAC Vapour customers to share success stories, thereby providing smokers with information on less harmful alternatives in a manner that was responsible and consistent with public health goals. Following contact from the ASA, they had made changes to the ad to better reflect that intention.
The ASA found that the ad encouraged people to become JAC Ambassadors who in turn would promote the sale of e-cigarettes on the advertiser’s behalf on social media. The ad had the indirect effect of promoting the sale of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components, which were not licensed as medicines, in online media. By encouraging people to promote the sale of such e-cigarettes on social media, the ad incited prospective affiliates to breach the Code.
The CAP Code was breached, and the ad must not appear again in the form investigated; and future marketing communications must not have the direct or indirect effect of promoting nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components, for example through the advertising of affiliate schemes.
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.
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.
"The ad therefore encouraged people to become JAC Ambassadors who in turn would promote the sale of e-cigarettes on the advertiser’s behalf on social media. We considered that meant the ad had the indirect effect of promoting the sale of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components, which were not licensed as medicines, in online media. We further considered that by encouraging people to promote the sale of such e-cigarettes on social media, the ad incited prospective affiliates to breach the Code, and the legislative ban contained in the TRPR. For those reasons we concluded the ad was irresponsible and therefore breached the Code."
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 JAC Vapour, an e-cigarette retailer, featured a JAC Ambassador webpage with a contact form into which people could enter their details to receive a unique affiliate link and discount code. The page detailed the benefits of becoming an Ambassador, which included a cut of the value of orders placed with JAC Vapour using the affiliate link, and a 10% discount code for family and friends. The page also gave tips for sharing the affiliate link and discount code on social media.
The ASA challenged whether the ad breached the CAP Code by irresponsibly encouraging the promotion of e-cigarettes and related components online, because unlicensed nicotine-containing e-liquids and their components could not be promoted in online media.
Magflo Ltd t/a JAC Vapour said the original intention of the JAC Ambassador programme was to enable existing JAC Vapour customers to share success stories, thereby providing smokers with information on less harmful alternatives in a manner that was responsible and consistent with public health goals. Following contact from the ASA, they had made changes to the ad to better reflect that intention.
The ASA found that the ad encouraged people to become JAC Ambassadors who in turn would promote the sale of e-cigarettes on the advertiser’s behalf on social media. The ad had the indirect effect of promoting the sale of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components, which were not licensed as medicines, in online media. By encouraging people to promote the sale of such e-cigarettes on social media, the ad incited prospective affiliates to breach the Code.
The CAP Code was breached, and the ad must not appear again in the form investigated; and future marketing communications must not have the direct or indirect effect of promoting nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components, for example through the advertising of affiliate schemes.