Print This Post
Advertiser: Liquid Solutions Manufacturing Worldwide Ltd. (Wicked e-juice)
Medium: Internet (Company Website)
Codes:ASAI Code 6th Edition: 1.6(c), 2.9, 2.22, 2.24
The advertisement which was accompanied by a picture of an e-Cigarette pen with a price of €99.95 attached, referred to the following:
“Powered by Orboost
Wicked e-tech: the best E Cigarette in Ireland
We are very proud to introduce Wicked e-tech, a ground-breaking e-cig pen that is set to change the world of vaping.
Wicked e-tech is powered by Orboost, a revolutionary ultra-long life battery technology. Orboost batteries are designed to power your e-cigarette pen without the need to recharge it from the moment you purchase it, until the moment you replace it.
Gone is the inconvenience of having to recharge, gone is the frustration of a dead battery.
Combined with the outstanding build quality you’ve come to expect from Wicked, the Wicked e-tech pen will change your world.
When your Wicked e-tech pen is ready for despatch, we will send you an email prompting you to complete an online sale. You will have 2 days to complete the transaction once you receive your email.
Register your Wicked e-tech vaping pen with us to avail of our 12-month warranty. If your Wicked e-tech pen suffers from a power outage during this period, we will replace it for you. To claim your 12 month warranty please email email@example.com”
The complainant queried the validity of the claims made in the advertising. He said that if the technology as outlined existed, he considered that it would have been snapped up by major companies who would have been prepared to pay billions for it.
The advertisers said that they had never sold the product in question to any person under the pretext that it never needed to be recharged. Any member of the public who queried the technology involved was informed that this technology was due out in 2015. The product was currently going through the patent application process.
In the meantime it should not have been referenced in their advertising and they had removed any reference to it from their website.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. The Committee noted that while the advertisers had amended their website, they had not provided any substantiation for their product claims. They considered that it was misleading to promote a product that was not currently available and as such the advertising had breached Sections 2.9, 2.22 and 2.24 of the Code.
The advertisement should not run in its current form again.