Types of identified restrictions: comprehensive tobacco marketing legislation that include that restriction of price promotions; standalone legislation that restricts price promotions on tobacco products, which could involve banning or restricting tobacco product coupons, value-added promotions (e.g., multipack discounts or cross-product promotions) and/or buy-down programmes (i.e., retailers lower prices by set amount agreed with manufacturer, tracks number of given discounts and then manufactuerer reimbuses the retailer after end of promotion period).

What we know: Approaches to restricting price promotions on tobacco products have either been part of comprehensive tobacco control legislative efforts or standalone policies targeting certain price promoting mechanisms (Golden et al., 2016). There is limited evidence of the effects of price promotion restrictions on tobacco use, but there is evidence to suggest that stronger price promotion restriction policies can decrease awareness of promotion offers, which could impact consumption and sales of tobacco (Golden et al., 2016).

Types of identified restrictions: bans and/or restrictions to advertising, promotion and/or marketing of tobacco and/or vaping products.

What we know: Well-established evidence indicates that exposure to tobacco industry advertising can negatively impact health through increasing appeal, purchasing and/or consumption of tobacco (Brown et al., 2014a; Brown et al., 2014b; Wilson et al., 2012). Evidence supports the use of comprehensive, mandatory bans on tobacco advertising and sponsorship (Brown et al., 2014a; Brown et al., 2014b; Wilson et al., 2012). Multi-component tobacco control policy action involving increased tobacco taxes, clean indoor air laws, advertisment bans and labelling is highly cost-effective (Singh et al., 2018). There is limited but suggestive evidence of efficacy of implemented advertsing bans or restrictions on smoking prevelance, with effect direction and size influenced by the type of bans/restrictions in place and challenges around assessing the independent effects of these interventions in the real-world environment (Wilson et al., 2012). There is limited evidence on the impact of vaping marketing and adertising practice in the point-of-sale environments of vape shops and more traditional tobacco retailers (e.g., convenience stores, gas stations) on youth use of these products (O'Connell and Kephart, 2020).

What we know: Matthes et al., (2023) identified five types of countermarketing activities against tobacco industry interference: exposing harmful industry practices and false claims, accessing political decision-makers, generating and using scientific evidence, use of legal tools (e.g., filing complaints) and mobilising coalitions of potential supporters. Effective examples of counterstrategies were characterised by increased public awareness of tobacco industry wrongdoing, generated community support for tobacco control measures and greater pressure on political and legal desicion-makers (Matthes et al., 2023).

Examples of implementation: Matthes et al., (2023) reports on several case examples of national and local level displays of counterstrategy activities to tackle tobacco industry interference. One cited example of evidence mobilisation at the local level can be seen within a case from California, in which the American Cancer Society conducted a survey to illustrate public support for smoke-free bars admist legal efforts by the tobacco industry to get California's smoke-free bar legislation repealed (Matthes et al., 2023).

What we know: E-cigarettes or vapes have been classified in different ways across regulatory contexts, commonly as either general consumer products, tobacco products or medical products, which has shaped the ways subsequent regulation, policies and restrictions have and can be developed (O'Connell and Kephart, 2020).

Examples of implementation: Within the US, vapes have been defined as tobacco products in the federal context, which has dictated the types of regulatory measures available, but at the same time, there have been cases were state and local government have sought more comprehensive legislation (O'Connell and Kephart, 2020). The states of New Jersey, New Hampshire and California have developed their own definitions of vaping products in order to develop policies for restricting youth access, and Oregon has classifed e-cigarettes under 'inhalent delivery systems' (i.e., devices that can deliver nicotine or cannabinoids via vapor/aerosol to person inhaling from device) within its Indoor Clean Air Act (O'Connell and Kephart, 2020).