The way I see it is that an implied claim is the same as a blatant claim when you are dealing with uneducated consumers. That is how advertising and marketing law in the UK sees it too.
Putting WHO in the manual and claiming to be NRT joins the two, makes it seem that there is regulation and it's approved.
Arguing semantics doesn't change the intent either and that's what is important in the eyes of the law. The WHO name was used without approval to connect it with a practice they do not endorse.
EDIT
When I say 'uneducated consumers' I really mean uninformed or credulous.
Putting WHO in the manual and claiming to be NRT joins the two, makes it seem that there is regulation and it's approved.
Arguing semantics doesn't change the intent either and that's what is important in the eyes of the law. The WHO name was used without approval to connect it with a practice they do not endorse.
EDIT
When I say 'uneducated consumers' I really mean uninformed or credulous.
Last edited: