Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland releases latest Complaints Bulletin

Lifestyle Sports

The complainant stated that they received a promotional email from Lifestyle Sports offering 25% off all orders over €100.

They said they selected items to bring the total over the required €100 to avail of the discount. They said they did not receive the discount as advertised. They said on contacting the advertiser they were told the offer was over and that no expiry date was included in the advertisement.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/sports-wear/

The Hut Group (Look Fantastic)

Online

(Influencer’s own social media)

The complainant said the Influencer was advertising the Look Fantastic website and their products in an Instagram story but did not use #AD until the end of the segment.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/health-beauty-makeup/

Harvey Norman

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/retail-9/

Volkswagen

The complainant considered that the claim that the cars were ‘carbon neutral’ was misleading as they did not consider that electric cars were carbon neutral either during their manufacturing process or when they were being charged using electricity that was generated by fossil fuels.

15.6.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/motoring-43/

Wow Interiors

The complainant considered that the advertising was misleading as, after enquiry, they were informed that the sofa was €2,395 and the footstool was €650.

The advertisement was subsequently amended to include the word “Variants” (sic), however the saving claim of €2,350 and a price claim of €650 were still being made.

The complainant considered that the description in the advertisement, the advertised price and saving were misleading as there was no reference to the fact that the price was a ‘from’ price and no indication of where the saving of €2,350 was from.

4.22 and 4.26.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/furniture-2/

Toyota

Issue 1:

The complainant questioned how the claim “the car brand voted best for tackling climate change in Ireland” could be made when the advertisers’ hybrid vehicles required fuel unlike battery electric vehicles from other car manufacturers.

Issue 2:

The complainant also objected to the fact that no source had been provided for the claim.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/motoring-44/

The complainant considered that the claim “never run out of energy” was misleading.

The complainant said that the claim meant that a user would never have to refuel the car as the car would be a perpetual motion machine, which they considered was impossible.

The complainant also said that the cars were required to be filled with petrol and they considered that all the car’s energy came from petrol, even the recovered energy from regenerative breaking which was only recoverable after petrol had been used to get the car up to speed. They said that it was not possible to recover all the energy as there were losses in any system and driving continuously at any speed would burn petrol and would

not be recovering energy.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/motoring-45/

Issue 1:

A complainant considered that the reference to ‘Guaranteed vouchers’ was misleading as

no reference had been made in the banner, or during the booking process, that terms and

conditions applied. On enquiring about obtaining a voucher for their flight, the

complainant was advised that the voucher had to be applied for 14 days in advance of their flight. In the circumstances, the complainant considered that the reference to ‘Guaranteed vouchers’ without any disclaimer was misleading.

Issue 2:

A complainant considered that the banner advertising led consumers to believe that if they

booked a flight that must be changed or cancelled, they had multiple options to recover

the full cost of the flights booked. The complainant applied for a refund after booking

their flight but was advised that the terms and conditions of the ticket they booked did not

include the offer of a full cash refund, but that they could have applied for a refund

voucher, however, they were too late to do so.

and 5.16.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/travel-holidays-5/

Online (Social Media – Company’s Own Page)

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/health-beauty-60/

The complainant objected to an offer of free Apple TV+ they received after their purchase of an Apple device. The complainant tried to avail of the offer but noted that they had been invoiced for the Apple TV+ service and on enquiring was advised that as they had already availed of the offer on the purchase of an Apple device in 2020, they could not avail of the offer again.

As the offer emails had been sent to the complainant and did not state that the offer could only be availed of once, irrespective of how many devices were purchased, the complainant considered that the direct emails were misleading.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/computers-3/

The complainant considered that the posts were misleading because they did not state that the links were affiliate links.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/clothing-9/

Two complaints were received regarding the advertising.

Both complainants considered that the product was an investment coin, the value of which could go up or go down. One complainant objected to the advertising on the grounds that it had not included any warning as to the value of the product going up or down.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/financial-13/

Principles / Decency and Propriety / Gambling

Issue 1:

One complainant considered that the advertisement was making gambling seem as if it was a part of normal life and that it was putting humour into gambling, making it seem to be fun.

Issue 2:

Several complainants objected to the advertising on the grounds that it was offensive and sexist to men. The complainants objected to the comparison of the man to a racehorse and to the woman throwing a pair of underpants at him which they considered was demeaning and sexist to men.

Several complainants also referred to the commentary in the advertisement to the man’s ability to breed and said that if this comment had been made in regard to a woman it would be considered inappropriate and lacking sensitivity.

Issue 3:

Several complainants objected to the use of the word “banker” in the advertisement on the grounds that they considered it offensive as it was suggestive and was being used in a derogatory way.

One complainant considered that the term was implying that Irish people were stupid and racist, while another considered that it was racist to English people.