Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A national press ad, for the Nicorette mouth spray, featured an image of the advertised product. The text "QUICK CRAVING RELIEF TO HELP GET YOU THROUGH A SUCCESSFUL STOPTOBER" was shown in the spray emanating from the advertised product.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad breached the Code, because it:
1. implied the product was suitable for use as a smoking cessation device; and
2. misleadingly implied an association with the NHS "Stoptober" campaign.
Response
1. Johnson & Johnson Ltd said Nicorette QuickMist Mouthspray was a licensed medicinal product. They said the summary of product characteristics document was agreed with the MHRA and formed the basis for using the product. They provided a copy of that document and pointed out that it made clear that the advertised product "... relieves and/or prevents craving and nicotine withdrawal symptoms associated with tobacco dependence. It is indicated to aid smokers wishing to quit or reduce prior to quitting, to assist smokers who are unwilling or unable to smoke, and as a safer alternative to smoking for smokers and those around them." In that context, they believed the claims made in the ad were consistent with a smoking cessation product as described in the summary of product characteristics document.
2. Johnson & Johnson Ltd said the "Stoptober" campaign actively encouraged collaboration with other stakeholders in smoking cessation. They said they followed guidelines set by Public Health England (PHE) and provided evidence that the ad in question had been approved by PHE.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted the ad made reference to quick craving relief and presented the product as a device that could help users to successfully complete the Stoptober challenge, which challenged smokers to stop smoking for 28 days. In that context, we considered the ad implied that consumers could use the product for smoking cessation. Because we understood that the product had been licensed by the MHRA for that purpose, we concluded that the ad did not breach the Code.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
and
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
Because Johnson & Johnson Ltd had provided evidence to demonstrate that PHE had given the necessary authorisation for them to run the ad, including the reference to the "Stoptober" campaign, we considered the ad did not breach the Code on this point.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.50 3.50 Marketing communications must not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation. Marketing communications must not claim that the marketer (or any other entity referred to), the marketing communication or the advertised product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by any public or other body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. (Endorsements and testimonials) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
