Ad description
A website, www.vapesuperstore.co.uk, for the vape retailer Vape Superstore seen on 24 March 2025, included a webpage promoting the Menthol Ice 50ml Shortfill E-Liquid product from Riot Squad.
In the “Product Details” section, underneath a subheading which stated “Safety Notice: […] MHRA Tested”, text stated “All of our e-liquids […] have been rigorously tested by the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) to ensure they meet the highest standards of safety. You can shop with confidence knowing that each product complies with UK regulations and is safe for use. For more information on […] MHRA testing, please refer to the official resources: E-cigarettes: regulations for consumer products”. The text “official resources” hyperlinked to the UK Government website which provided official guidance on the regulations surrounding e-cigarettes and vaping products in the UK.
Issue
Action on Smoking and Health Scotland (ASH Scotland) challenged whether the:
- claim “All of our e-liquids […] have been rigorously tested by the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) to ensure they meet the highest standards of safety” was misleading and could be substantiated; and
- ad implied that all products sold by the advertiser had been officially approved, endorsed or authorised by the MHRA.
Response
- Easytek t/a Vape Superstore acknowledged that the claim about MHRA testing may have misled customers by implying the MHRA directly tested or approved their e-liquids. They said that the MHRA’s role was limited to notification and oversight under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, and that the agency did not carry out any product testing. They acknowledged the wording overstated the MHRA’s involvement and confirmed the claim was removed once the issue was raised.
- They accepted that the claim could have implied MHRA endorsement, which was not their intention, and stated they did not hold or claim any such approval. They said they had begun reviewing their content to avoid similar implications in future.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
We considered that consumers were likely to understand the ad, in particular the claims “rigorously tested by the MHRA” and “highest levels of safety” to mean that Vape Superstore’s products had undergone testing and safety assessments by the MHRA. We considered that impression was further reinforced by the accompanying text: “For more information on […] MHRA testing…”.
We understood that, while the MHRA had established minimum safety and quality standards for e-cigarettes and e-liquids, it did not conduct direct testing of these products. Rather, manufacturers were required to submit notifications to the MHRA prior to sale. This formed the minimum regulatory requirement for these products to be legally marketed in the UK.
We welcomed Vape Superstore’s decision to remove the claim. However, because the ad implied that the product had undergone testing and safety assessments by the MHRA, when that was not the case, we concluded that the ad breached the CAP Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleadingness) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that ads must not claim that a product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by any public or other body if it had not, or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation.
The ad stated that the MHRA tested the products to ensure they meet “the highest standards of safety”. The ad also included the text “For more information on […] MHRA testing, please refer to the official resources”. The text “official resources” was hyperlinked to the UK Government website and official guidance on the regulations governing e-cigarettes and vaping products in the UK. We considered that these claims, combined with references to the Government and its official resources, gave the impression that the MHRA had directly approved the products, and that they were specifically endorsed by the agency.
Because the ad implied that the product was endorsed by the MHRA, which was not the case, we concluded that it breached the CAP Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.50 (Endorsements and testimonials).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Easytek t/a Vape Superstore to ensure, that their ads did not misleadingly imply that any of their products had been tested or had been assessed for their safety by the MHRA. We told them to ensure that their ads did not misleadingly imply endorsement or approval by the MHRA or any other body, where no such endorsement existed.
