Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland releases latest Complaints Bulletin

The Jewellery House

Online (Company Own Website)

Misleading / Substantiation / Environmental Claims

The website included a number of claims including “Our gold is sustainably mined in the deep Irish hills of Omagh” and “House of Lor gold is sourced ethically and is refined responsibly without the use of nasty chemicals.”

Issue 1:

Complainants considered the claims that the gold was Irish and from a gold mine in Ireland as misleading. They said that the mine was in Omagh, Northern Ireland and classified as under control of the UK crown.

Issue 2:

Complainants stated that the ore produced at the mine was sold to a smelter and that the ore was mixed with other batches meaning the country of origin could not be guaranteed.

Issue 3:

Complainants considered the claims that the gold was “sourced ethically and refined responsibly without the use of nasty chemicals” to be misleading as the processing of the ore used toxic processes and could not be considered ethical or green.

Issue 4:

The complainants considered that the advertisement was misleading as no gold was produced on site but rather an ore concentrate which required further processing at another location.

Issues 1, 2, and 4:

Not Upheld

Issue 3:

Upheld in Part

(The Complaints Committee noted the term ‘ethically’ referred to the fact their gold was from a single source and had not been mixed with other unethical sources. The committee, however, did not feel ‘sustainably’ had been sufficiently substantiated.)

Toyota

Online (Company Own Website)

Misleading / Substantiation

The Toyota Hybrid Service webpage stated “Having completed a Hybrid Health Check, you are covered by one year or 15,000 kms Hybrid Battery Extended Care. In the event of an issue with your Hybrid battery during this time, we will replace it free of charge.”

The complainant had a Hybrid Health Check and nine months later the hybrid battery failed. They were informed the battery was damaged beyond repair and they would have to pay for a replacement as the age of their car (2007) did not guarantee the hybrid battery replacement. The complainant considered that this contradicted the advertising claim as they had not exceeded the 15,000 km limit.

Upheld

4.1 and 4.4

Bank of Ireland

Television

Principles

The TV ad featured a woman throwing a hippo shaped money jar into a burning barrel angrily.

The complainants objected to the depiction of a man and woman burning documents in the barrel and the burning of the hippo shaped money jar and considered that it normalised this illegal and environmentally damaging practice of backyard burning.

Upheld

3.3

The Wine Opener

Online (Influencer’s Social Media Account)

Misleading / Recognisability

An Instagram story by the influencer on behalf of the advertiser featured the influencer using the product and included a number of statements including “I’m so happy that I’m working with Wine Opener” and “Shop Wine Opener here.”

The complainant said the advertisement was misleading as it was not clearly identified as a marketing communication.

Upheld

3.31, 3.32, 4.1 and 4.4

Volkswagen

Press (Digital Newspaper)

Misleading / Substantiation

The advertisement was a sponsored article as seen in the Irish Examiner newspaper. The article invited readers to visit Blackwater Motors for its Volkswagen Open Week. The article referred to various offers on various Volkswagen models and advertised low-rate finance and service plans from €18.99 per month.

The complainant considered the headline of the article to be misleading as they said it was not possible to buy a new Volkswagen for €18.99 a month, but that only the service plan and not the car itself could be purchased for this price.

Upheld

4.1

Virgin Media

Online (Company Website)

Misleading / Substantiation

A banner on the broadband page of the website advertised next day delivery if customers ordered before 6:00pm Monday – Thursday with some exceptions for busy times of the year e.g. Christmas.

The complainant ordered broadband before 6:00pm on Monday and expected to receive their product at the latest two days after ordering. The complainant considered the advertising misleading as they were contacted by Virgin Media over a week after placing their order to arrange delivery which was outside the advertised delivery time.

Upheld

4.1 and 4.4

The Dublin Meat Company

Online (Influencer’s Social Media Account)

Misleading / Recognisability

A post on the Influencer’s Instagram account detailed where the range of Fit Food ready meals were available to buy and how much the influencer spends each week on the products which included the correct AD disclosure.

The Instagram story from the Influencer discussing the ready meals and telling viewers where they are available did not include an ad disclosure.

The complainant said that while the Influencer’s timeline post had referred to the fact it was an AD, the Instagram story did not have any disclosure.

Upheld

3.10, 3.31, 3.32, 4.1 and 4.4

Online (Social Media)

The ad was a grid post in collaboration with the advertiser on an Influencer’s Instagram account. The post promoted an opportunity to win a space on a wellness retreat offered by the advertiser and stated entrants must tag a friend (they could tag as many as they liked and each tag counted as an entry) and follow the advertiser and influencer to enter.

Issue 1:

The complainants objected on the grounds that the advertiser selected one of the two names from their email entrants which was not listed as a method of competition entry on the Instagram post.

Issue 2:

The complainants questioned the method for choosing each winner as one name was selected by the advertiser and one by the influencer. These two names were then put in a bowl and one was selected as the overall winner. The complainants said the selection process for choosing these two names was not transparent.

Issue 3:

One complainant believed that the overall winner selected was known to both the advertiser and influencer.

Upheld

Issues 2 and 3:

Not Upheld

4.1 and 5.1(a)

The Holyrood Hotel

Online (Social Media)

Misleading / Promotional Marketing Practices

The advertisers’ Facebook page posted various competitions for hotel breaks, for example ‘April Spa Steal Competition Time. Share to win.’

Issue 1:

The complainant considered that the competitions had not included any information as to when the draw would take place.

Issue 2:

The complainant considered that multiple competitions were being run each week, however, it appeared that only one winner was drawn per week.

Issue 3:

The ASAI Executive requested comments regarding the fact that the competitions did not include details or a link to terms and conditions of entry, nor any information on how consumers ‘Share to win.’

Issues 1,2 and 3: Upheld

4.1, 4.4, 5.5, 5.15(a), 5.16, 5.17, 5.30, 5.30(a), 5.30(j), 5.32

Tan Organic

Online (Social Media)

Misleading / Substantiation / Environmental Claims

Issue 1:

The Instagram post showed a pipette bottle for their tan with the text overlay “Why do we use Bamboo packaging?’ followed by a list of environmental benefits associated with bamboo in the post description.

The complainant objected to the ad on the grounds that it was misleading and stated that while bamboo packaging is compostable, the product pictured depicted glass covered in varnished wood which is not compostable.

Issue 2:

Also featured on the brand’s official Instagram page, the post promoted an image of their Self-Tan Lotion. Beside the product were circled images of ginger, aloe vera and honey denoting product ingredients. The caption which accompanied the image read ‘Did you know our products are vegan certified and made from 100% natural ingredients.’

The complainant considered this advertisement misleading as the product included honey which is not vegan.

Issues 1 and 2:

Upheld

4.01, 4.04, 4.05, 4.09, 4.10 and 15.08

HelloFresh

Online (Social Media)

Misleading / Recognisability

An Instagram story on an influencer’s account on behalf of the advertisers included a discount code for their followers for orders with HelloFresh.

The complainant considered that the content was advertising material, however, they did not consider it had been labelled as an advert.

Upheld

3.1 and 4.1

Squareup International Ltd

Radio

Misleading / Substantiation

Four advertisements formed part of a radio campaign listing the various products and services offered by Squareup International Limited. The claim ‘Everything your business needs – Almost’ was featured in all four advertisements.

The complainant objected to the advertisement’s use of the term ‘everything’ as they said that Squareup only supplied point of sale equipment and services and therefore the claim ‘everything your business needs’ was a hyperbole and exaggeration.

Not Upheld

N/A

Kendal Nutricare Ltd (Kendamil)

Leaflet

Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages

The leaflet advertisement for Kendamil baby formula distributed at an event attended by consumers featured variations of the product with symbols to indicate the product had an Irish founder (Irish flag) and that it was organic whole milk with no palm or fish oil. A table was also provided which indicated how the ingredients of the product compared to other baby formulas.

Issue 1:

The complainant considered that inaccurate information had been provided on competitor products by indicating the presence of palm oil in one product when this was not the case.

Issue 2:

The complainant outlined that it was against regulations to advertise Stage 1 infant formula.

Issue 3:

The complainant considered that there had been heavy emphasis on the Irishness of Kendamil products across the communication in order to reach the Irish consumer including use of the Irish flag, ‘for Irish families’ statement, ‘Irish founders’ reference and a mention of some Irish retailers.

Issues 1 and 3:

Not Upheld

Issue 2:

Upheld

8.31 and 8.32