UK regulation of sales, marketing and promotion

[Kate]

In the UK the Advertising Standards Committee have this code about sales, promotion and marketing - The CAP Code Index

Some of the relevant things it says are:

All marketing communications should be legal, decent, honest and truthful

All marketing communications should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.

The Code is applied in the spirit as well as in the letter.

Marketers should deal fairly with consumers.

Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.

If there is a significant division of informed opinion about any claims made in a marketing communication they should not be portrayed as generally agreed.

Marketers should not exploit the credulity, lack of knowledge or inexperience of consumers.

No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.

Marketing communications should not condone or encourage unsafe practices. Particular care should be taken with marketing communications addressed to or depicting children

Marketers should hold signed and dated proof, including a contact address, for any testimonial they use. Unless they are genuine opinions taken from a published source, testimonials should be used only with the written permission of those giving them.

Testimonials alone do not constitute substantiation and the opinions expressed in them must be supported, where necessary, with independent evidence of their accuracy. Any claims based on a testimonial must conform with the Code

Unless they are genuine statements taken from a published source, references to tests, trials, professional endorsements, research facilities and professional journals should be used only with the permission of those concerned.

Marketers should not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without having obtained the necessary authorisation. Marketers must not claim that they, or any other entity that features in their marketing communications, or their products have been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval.

Guarantees may be legally binding on those offering them. The word 'guarantee' should not be used in a way that could cause confusion about consumers' legal rights. Substantial limitations on the guarantee should be spelled out in the marketing communication. Before commitment, consumers should be able to obtain the full terms of the guarantee from marketers.

Marketers should inform consumers about the nature and extent of any additional rights provided by the guarantee, over and above those given to them by law, and should make clear how to obtain redress.

Marketing communications should not mislead consumers about who manufactures the product.

 

[Kate]

Accurately describing goods and services - Trading Standards Central - Business Guidance Leaflet

"...A trader must not mislead a consumer about a product (this is defined very broadly and includes goods, services, rights and obligations) in any way by giving false or deceptive information about a number of specific matters. He must also not omit information about a product, which a consumer would need in order to make an informed decision..."

Consumer protection from unfair trading - The Office of Fair Trading: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

"... The Regulations introduce a general duty not to trade unfairly and seek to ensure that traders act honestly and fairly towards their customers..."


Professional diligence
10.4 Professional diligence is defined (in Regulation 2) as:
‘the standard of special skill and care which a trader may
reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers
which is commensurate with either — (a) honest market
practice in the trader’s field of activity, or (b) the general
principle of good faith in the trader’s field of activity’.
10.5 Professional diligence is an objective standard which
will vary according to the context. The word ‘special’ is not
intended to require more than would reasonably be expected
of a trader in their field of activity. However, poor current
practice that is widespread in an industry/sector cannot
amount to an acceptable objective standard. That is because
this is not what a reasonable person would expect from
a trader who is acting in accordance with honest market
practice or good faith.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/cpregs/oft1008.pdf

 

[Letzin Hale]

Is there a specific point to these two posts or are they purely for information purposes?
Alan.

 

[Kate]

Yes.

What consumer protection laws in your country relate to liquid nicotine and delivery devices?

 

[Kate]

This is the view Australian legislators took on liquid nicotine and delivery devices:

It is indeed going to be a long road. I read every word of this and saved a copy to my laptop. This is the most thorough and well thought-out discussion I've yet read anywhere. Australia did its homework before the ban.

These are, however, the same intelligent discussions that can be found on this forum. The hurdles are real. Drop the cheerleader mentality and consider e-smoking for what it is. We are going to need to address these contentions in the U.S. if e-cigs have any future. Forget fanciful notions of end runs around what these are -- drug delivery devices for addicts. Meet the contentions made in this document. Or have the products banned here (US) as well.

The following are representative paragraphs from the lengthy document:

The electronic cigarette is currently being promoted, through various websites, as a recreational product for use in bars and clubs, a fun product, with few restrictions on the period of use, the level of nicotine concentration or the quantity of nicotine inhaled through the apparatus. The intention appears to be to market to those already addicted to smoking, as well as to a new younger market not yet addicted to nicotine or smoking. The apparatus is described as a tobacco-less tool designed to resemble a traditional cigarette and to be “smoked” in the same way. The smoke is in the form of vapour mixed with nicotine from a cartridge inserted into the “cigarette”.

It was asserted that electronic cigarettes should be regulated as pharmaceutical products or medical devices because they deliver nicotine, but do not contain tobacco.

The main contention was that it is not tenable to allow products which deliver nicotine and are marketed with claims, to be sold without proper regulations.

The submission states that electronic cigarettes are designed as recreational products which assist and perpetuate nicotine addition. The sole purpose of the product is to facilitate and perpetuate nicotine addiction, not the treatment of the addiction.

Extensive testing of the product needs to be undertaken to ascertain its safety, before it can be sold on the Australian market.

All chemicals and ingredients contained in these products have not been established, and some additives contained in the scenting and flavouring ingredients are not known. Even though the claim was made that the product is free from carcinogens, the chemical agents remaining in the device have not been through any rigorous testing to prove their not detrimental status. Given the potential toxicity, risks and hazards associated with the electronic cigarette, and the lack of substantial evidence of safety or therapeutic benefit, until these prerequisites are met, the products should not be allowed on the Australian market,

The Committee confirmed that nicotine in an electronic cigarette is a Schedule 7 poison and is therefore subject to regulatory control as a dangerous poison.

The Committee resolved that, as a matter of urgency, Victoria should amend its Poisons Code to include nicotine. This action would ensure that electronic cigarettes could not be supplied on the domestic market in any Australian jurisdiction.

***

And that's what Australia got for the New Year.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...australian-ban-egar-illegal-28.html#post82865

This is a debate that all legislators and regulators will be having sooner or later and there is no argument against a ban for public safety reasons yet.

Please, traders, be careful how you market your products, your actions will influence authorities. If there are reports or signs of unethical, dangerous behaviour they will act faster.

 

[nqhqhz]

For the time being, as consumers, we must be vigilant of any dodgy marketing or unsafe practices and vote with our feet.

 

[Kate]

Luckily the best traders here are sensible and behave ethically. Unfortunately there are others who don't know what ethical means.

Give your money to the goodies.

 

[deewal]

This Thread should be bumped as much as possible. I'm going through a whole lot of Adverts and picking out things that can get us into trouble with the Advertising Standards Committee.
I'll start with this one.
1) I'd like to see the words "can be used anywhere" taken out of suppliers adverts as that is a "claim" and not a Fact and if the owner of the Establishment, Train, Plane, Bus, etc objects and you will not comply with their objections you are acting illegally therefore this phrase is Misleading.

No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.

 

[Kate]

Yes, that is one of the claims that comes up a lot. It may be legal but that requires different wording than 'smoke anywhere'.

There are a lot of myths discussed here - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/3992-esmoking-myths.html

 

[Kate]

There's a UK trader who uses this line for their website link: "Electronic Cigarettes, Stop Smoking, Electric Cigarette, E Liquid, Alternative"

Stop Smoking = NRT = ...... off MHRA. They've already told UK suppliers that they cannot sell esmoking as a medical or health product.

E Liquid - deliberate deceit to draw custom, they don't sell eliquid, just cartridges.

Among other things their website also claims health benefits from esmoking.

They aren't interested in trading honestly so hopefully Trading Standards will stop the misleading claims before legislators stick their noses in and ban it for everyone. They don't need much more of an excuse than unscrupulous sellers making fake claims to uninformed consumers.

 

[schmoker]

E Liquid - deliberate deceit to draw custom, they don't sell eliquid, just cartridges.

I know this was posted a while ago, but the site I think you are referring to does sell juice in 20ml bottles, but maybe this was not the case when you originally posted.

Otherwise, obviously agree with all the above.

(and no, I don't work for them!)

 

[Kate]

They've recently started selling eliquid so that claim is true now.

I don't work for them either