00929-24 Vazon Vapes v The Guernsey Press and Star

Summary of Complaint

1. Vazon Vapes complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Guernsey Press and Star breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “‘Pocket money’ vapes still on sale to children”, published on 29 January 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported on the issue of vapes being accessible to children and being sold at low prices on the Isle of Guernsey. It reported that “vaping nicotine products [we]re on sale locally for as little as 19p, with the Bailiwick still without any regulations on the sale and promotion of vapes”. The article reported that there had not been further progress made by the Isle of Guernsey in relation to regulating vapes since the previous May when the Health and Social Care department had reviewed the regulations. It said this had left “vapes without regulation and within the reach of children, clearly selling at ‘pocket money’ prices”.

3. The article referred specifically to the shop Vazon Vapes, the complainant, and its website, which it reported advertised nicotine salts “for 19p”, vape liquid “from 23p”, and “disposable vapes from 49p”. The article further reported that “when visiting the [Vazon Vapes’] website, a date of birth for an age of over 18 was required, however it was easy to put in an incorrect year, and no proof of identity was required”. The article also reported that "Vazon Vapes, which used to run a physical shop in Contree Mansell until the end of 2022, was approached for comment by email, but did not respond". The article also referred to another vape seller.

4. The publication sent the following email to the complainant on 25 January 2024, four days prior to the article’s publication:

“I understand that your business is mostly online and so I am hoping to get your thoughts on a few things:

• Does your online shop comply with UK regulations, or do you offer more variety because of the lack of legislation in Guernsey?

• What is the maximum strength of vape/liquid that you offer?

• Do you ID people under the age of 18? If so, how does this work online?

• Do you often get customers under the age of 18 trying to buy vapes? How does your business deal with this?

• Would you like to see regulations on the sale of vapes and vape liquids in Guernsey? If so, what do you think this should include? (for example, nicotine strength, age restrictions etc.) I noticed that some of your vape liquids are on sale for as little as 19p.

• Is it a concern that nicotine is accessible at such a small price?

• This price is easily payable by young children, would they be able to access these products?

• How are you able to sell at such a low price?

• Do sales increase when you offer products at these prices? It would be great to hear what you think about this and would be helpful if you would get back to me by 3pm tomorrow (Friday)”.

The complainant did not reply to this email.

5. The complainant first complained to the publication directly on 29 January, the same day the article was published. It set out its concerns about the article, but did not confirm the age verification checks it had in place. It then made a complaint to IPSO. The complainant said the headline and text of the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as its shop did not sell vapes to children – and never did. It also said it was not aware of vapes being on sale to children in Guernsey. It said it used the following four age verification and identification methods to prevent sales to under 18s:

• In person age verification and in person ID checks – the identification provided was checked in person by trained staff during the time it operated a physical store.

• Age Check by merchant acquirer – this method checked age by using information from the company operating the bank card and information from databases like Experian. The age check was performed before the card payment is processed – if the card holder was under 18, the transaction would not be completed and the goods could not be purchased.

• Age verification application – a person must enter their age and be over 18 in order to enter the website.

• Terms & Conditions Check Box application – customers are required to agree to the terms and conditions confirmation of the website before they can check-out.

6. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate where it reported that “it was easy to put in an incorrect year [as part of a person’s date of birth], and no proof of identity was required” on the Vazon Vapes website. The complainant did not consider that breaking its Terms of Use to view its website was equal to being able to purchase from a website without the need for any identification and re-iterated that it did not sell items from its website to those under 18 years of age. It stated that when it operated a physical store, it was also able to verify a person’s age in person.

7. Further to this, the complainant said the article inaccurately reported that it was “clearly selling [products] at ‘pocket money’ prices”, as the listed prices were from the clearance section of the website, and there was not a section called “pocket money prices”.

8. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 1 as it was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the email sent by the publication prior to the publication of the article. The complainant said it received an email to its customer email address at 17:33 on 25 January and that the reporter requested a reply before 15:00 the next day. The complainant did not consider this was a reasonable amount of time to respond.

9. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said the article did not report that the website was selling, or had sold, vapes to children, or that the complainant was operating outside of the law, but rather that all available evidence appeared to indicate that children could access the products if they wished to. The publication added that it had approached the complainant for comment prior to publication via email, and had also tried to call it, but did not receive a response until after the article’s publication. Prior to the complainant making its complaint to IPSO and on the same day as receiving the complaint, the publication responded directly, and offered to publish a comment from the complainant. During IPSO’s investigation and 7 days after being made aware of the complaint by IPSO, the publication offered to print a correction on pages 2-5 of the newspaper, and as a footnote to the article or beneath the headline.

10. The complainant disputed the original wording offered, so the publication amended and finalised the offer on 26 June 2024 to:

“On 29 January 2024 we published an article entitled ‘"Pocket money" vapes still on sale to children’, which made reference to purchasing online from Vazonvapes.com and the age verification procedures on its website.

Since publication, the Guernsey Press has been made aware by Vazon Vapes of its age verification process for the website.

It said that customers had largely been ID'd in person when the company ran a physical shop from 2015-2022, but that all customers were age-checked online at the point ofsale by the merchant acquirer. If the merchant acquirer cannot confirm the cardholder is 18 years of age, the card transaction will fail and an order will not be generated.

The Guernsey Press did not verify, by attempting to make a purchase, that vapes and vapingproducts were available to anyone under the age of 18 from Vazon Vapes website.

We apologise to Vazon Vapes for the inaccuracies published and for any disruption the article may have caused”.

11. The publication did not accept it had breached Clause 1 in relation to the claim that “it was easy to put in an incorrect year [as part of a person’s date of birth], and no proof of identity was required”. It said that it did not appear to be in dispute that it was possible, now, for a customer to lie about their age to access the products for sale on the complainant’s website. It said it had tried this on three separate occasions and was able to proceed to the website. In relation to the age verification procedures, the publication said it did not appear from its research that there were additional checks at the point of payment beyond the verification of a payment method.

12. The publication did not accept it had breached Clause 1 by reporting that the complainant was “clearly selling [products] at ‘pocket money’ prices”. Where there were vapes on sale for less than 50p, the publication did not consider it was inaccurate or misleading to describe them as “pocket money prices”.

13. The publication also did not accept it had breached Clause 1 where it had reported that the complainant “was approached for comment by email but did not respond”. It said that the complainant had been approached for comment, and had not responded before the article’s publication several days later.

14. The complainant did not accept the amended correction proposed by the publication as it conceded only the fact that the publication did not verify the claims by purchasing an item from the website.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

15. The Committee first considered whether the headline and the text of the article inaccurately reported that children could buy vapes from the complainant. The headline reported as fact that vapes were “on sale to children” and the text of the article referred directly to the complainant’s business. The Committee noted that the article mentioned two of the methods the complainant considered could verify a purchaser’s age: signing the terms and conditions and putting in a date of birth upon entry to the site – but stated that these could be bypassed and “no proof of identification was required”. The merchant acquirer age-check was not referred to in the article.

16. When considering if the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information, the Committee noted the steps the publication had attempted in order to see if a child could purchase a vape from the complainant – the publication had, on multiple occasions, entered a false date of birth in order to enter the website. However, the publication had not purchased any items using a card registered to a person under the age of 18 to verify any further age-verification methods used. The Committee also considered the publication’s approach to the complainant for comment. The request took place several days prior to the article’s publication, but gave a deadline of less than 24 hours, and specifically asked the complainant “do you ID people under the age of 18? If so, how does this work online?“ The Committee noted that the complainant did not respond to the publication at the time of request, nor did it clarify how the age verification process worked when it complained to the publication directly after the publication of the article – it first made this clear in its later complaint to IPSO. The Committee was mindful of the nature of the story itself – which was not time sensitive, and to the steps taken by the publication to verify the age verification process prior to publication. Absent of any attempt to purchase products from the complainant’s website, the Committee did not consider the publication had taken sufficient care to ensure it did not publish inaccurate information regarding whether children were able to purchase vapes from the complainant. The Committee considered the publication had a responsibility to investigate the claims further given the size of the complainant’s organisation and the nature of the claims within the article. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

17. Having determined the article was misleading to omit that the complainant used a merchant acquirer age-check as a method of age verification in the context of setting out that children may be able to easily buy vapes using the website, the Committee next considered whether the article required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii), which requires the correction of significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information.

18. The Committee had regard for the article as a whole, which focused on the possibility of children being able to buy vape products for low prices on the Isle of Guernsey. It referred to the complainant’s website directly and reported that it was able to put in a false date of birth to gain access, implying that a child could be able to do this as well and potentially purchase vaping products directly from the complainant. As the complainant had demonstrated the merchant acquirer age-check verification method may have prevented the sale of its products to those under the age of 18, when purchasing with their own payment card, the Committee considered this to be a significant inaccuracy. As such, a correction was required.

19. The Committee next considered whether the correction offered by the publication was sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The wording of the correction put the correct position on record - it made clear the method used by the complainant to verify the age of those purchasing from the website and noted that the publication had not purchased any products from the website. The Committee considered the correction was offered sufficiently promptly – the publication had offered to publish a comment from the complainant the same day it complained, and had offered a correction approximately one week after it had been made aware of the correct position in relation to the age-verification process as explained by the complainant.

20. When considering the placement of the correction, the Committee was mindful of the wording of the headline and article itself – whilst the claim that vapes were on sale to children did appear within the headline, the complainant was not named in the headline and the article referred to the Isle of Guernsey as a whole – not just the complainant. As such, the Committee did not consider a standalone correction was necessary. In these circumstances, and where the article had not been amended on this point, the Committee considered publishing the correction beneath the headline, as offered by the publication, would be duly prominent. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

21. The Committee considered whether the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 to report that vapes were on sale at “‘pocket money’ prices”. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s position that the prices of these products were low due to being within the clearance section of the website. However, the article did not state that the website had a section called “’pocket money’ prices”, and the characterisation of “’pocket money’ prices” was clear, given that the article focused on vaping products being accessible to children and the prices were below 50p. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

22. Lastly, the Committee considered whether the article inaccurately reported that the complainant “was approached for comment by email, but did not respond". As it was not in dispute that the complainant was contacted for comment by email and did not respond, the Committee did not consider the article was inaccurate to report that the complainant had been approached but did not respond, in breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

23. The complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1(i).

Remedial action required

24. The correction which was offered clearly put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence, when published beneath the headline, and should now be published.

Date complaint received: 26/02/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/11/2024