Last month I highlighted an Advertising Standards Authority decision (VPZ VapeClinic), which reminded e-cigarette producers and retailers that statements by health authorities regarding a category of products cannot simply be translated into product claims in advertising, at least not without specific authorisation from the medicines regulator.
This month we have another e-cigarette related ruling (Riot Labs Ltd) from the ASA which, in part, reiterates the message about medicinal claims but also tackles a “cut down to quit” claim. Riot’s advertising for Riot Bar e-cigarette urged smokers to cut their cigarette use and included the following text:
“RIP UP THE RULE BOOK!.... IDENTIFY YOUR TRIGGERS….. ONLY SMOKE IF YOU NEED TO. Cut your cigarette intake and use your Riot Bar whenever you aren’t able to smoke."
The advertiser argued that there was evidence to support its proposed quitting strategy. They also pointed out that they had made it clear that quitting is the best option by stating in the ad:
“Without realising, your cigarette intake will be next to nothing, or even better; non-existent. THE REST IS EASY”.
ASA nevertheless took the view that the messaging “undermined the message that quitting tobacco use is the best option for health” contrary to CAP Code rule 22.5.
Even if in reality the switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes may not be immediate for some smokers and dual use continues for a time, it seems that advertisers cannot reflect that in their copy without risking a challenge. Like the VPZ decision, this case emphasises that there is an important distinction between the content of public health message on e-cigarettes/vaping and the messaging scope permitted to product advertisers: the NHS website “vaping to quit smoking” (https://lnkd.in/e8shdQs3) includes the following statement regarding the transition from cigarettes to vaping:
“Some people manage to make a full switch very quickly, while for others it can take a bit longer.”
Comments