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.
Viada, a company, was charged with the distribution of tobacco advertising at a gas station. A EUR 1,448 fine was imposed. The violations included advertisements for both IQOS and GLO, heated tobacco products manufactured by Philip Morris and British American Tobacco (BAT), respectively. Enforcement officers from the Department’s Tobacco and Alcohol Control Division concluded that display stands for IQOS and GLO electronic heating devices amounted to hidden advertising of tobacco products. The Department reasoned that encouraging the purchase of the devices inevitably encourages the consumption of tobacco products because that is the devices’ sole function.
Viada appealed alleging that it should not have been the entity held liable for a violation of the law. As Viada had a contract with British American Tobacco Lietuva and Philip Morris Baltic for the products and materials, Viada submitted that BAT and Philip Morris should be charged instead as those companies needed to ensure that the materials complied with the Control of Tobacco Products Law. The Kaunus Regional Court disagreed, dismissing Viada’s appeal and upholding the charge.
Viada appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. The Supreme Administrative Court again dismissed Viada’s appeal. The court noted that regardless of business contracts, all companies must comply with the Advertising Law. Accordingly, Viada’s business contracts did not exempt them from the law’s application.