Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland releases latest Complaints Bulletin
- 12 advertisements across social media, online, radio, television and print were found to be in breach of the ASAI Code on grounds related to a range of issues including Misleading, Substantiation, Decency & Propriety, Alcohol and Environmental Claims
The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland’s (ASAI) independent Complaints Committee has released its latest Complaints Bulletin, which contains 18 case reports on complaints recently investigated by the organisation.
10 of the 18 cases were upheld in full and 2 of the 18 cases were upheld in part. Advertisements across social media, online, radio, television and print were found to be in breach of the ASAI Code on grounds related to Misleading, Substantiation, Decency & Propriety, Alcohol and Environmental Claims. Two intra industry / interested party complaints were upheld in part. The ASAI Complaints Committee chose not to uphold complaints made against 3 advertisements and issued a statement to 1 advertisement.
The Complaints Committee is a completely independent arm of the ASAI and is responsible for considering and adjudicating on complaints submitted by the public, by an organisation, by a Government Department, or any other person or body. The Committee is made up of a range of experts from the advertising, media, education, consumer, and marketing sectors. See further details here – http://www.asai.ie/about-us/complaints-committee
Commenting on the latest ASAI rulings, Orla Twomey, Chief Executive of the ASAI, stated:
“The latest complaints bulletin from the ASAI shows the scope of the ASAI and the significant part we play in ensuring that advertisements are legal, truthful, decent and honest for all Irish consumers. The ASAI fully investigates all complaints thoroughly to ensure that marketing communications in Ireland are adhering to the guidelines and not in breach of the ASAI code.
“The ASAI also provides a free and confidential copy advice service to the advertising industry to help them create responsible ads that adhere to the advertising code. If an advertiser, agency, or medium has any concerns about a marketing communications’ compliance with the ASAI’s Code, they can contact us and avail of the free and confidential copy advice service.”
Below is a list of advertisements that have been found to be in breach of the ASAI Code:
Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
K18 Hair | Social Media (Instagram) |
Misleading / Substantiation
|
The advertisement promoted K18 hair mask. The advertisement posted by an influencer to Instagram depicted two images of her hair from behind with captions ‘before’ and ‘after’.
Issue 1: The complainants considered the post misleading as the influencer did not disclose the use of hair extensions in the post.
Issue 2: The complainants considered the ‘after’ picture misleading as hair styling and a brightening filter were used to enhance the appearance of the hair.
Issue 3: Two complainants considered the post misleading as they said there was no indication of the post being advertising material.
|
Issue 1: Upheld Issue 2: Upheld Issue 3: Not Upheld |
4.1 and 4.4 | https://www.asai.ie/complaint/health-beauty-beauty-3/ |
The Brass Fox | Leaflet | Misleading / Substantiation |
The leaflet advertisement for The Brass Fox restaurant in Wicklow featured regular menu items and promotional items.
The complainant considered the leaflet misleading as the promoted daily deals were not available to purchase in the restaurant and only through the app via the restaurant’s partnership with FlipDish.
|
Upheld |
3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.5, 4.9, 4.10, 5.5, 5.15 and 5.26
|
https://www.asai.ie/complaint/leisure-restaurant-2/ |
Herbal Wise Limited |
Company Website |
Decency & Propriety |
The online advertisement referred to ‘Slut Mix’ designed to help regulate the female hormonal system of mares.
The complainant drew attention to the fact that a supplier of the product in the UK had been told by the Advertising Standards Authority UK to not refer to ‘Slut Mix’ in their advertising.
|
Upheld |
3.17, 3.8 and 3.20 |
https://www.asai.ie/complaint/equine-industry/ |
Winners Enclosure |
Online (Social Media) |
Decency & Propriety |
A social media post featured a man presenting a boy with a cheque.
The complainant objected to the use of a child in a marketing communication for a gambling company. The complainant said that the competition referenced in the social media post was an underage competition therefore meaning the boy pictured was underage.
|
Upheld | 10.1b and 10.17(e) | https://www.asai.ie/complaint/betting-2/ |
White Claw |
Online (Social Media) |
Misleading / Substantiation / Alcohol |
A post on the advertisers’ UK Facebook page promoted a competition to win tickets to a festival with followers having to comment on the post to enter.
Issue 1: The complainant entered the competition on Facebook and after checking the page the day after the competition closed, noted that they were the only person to comment and therefore considered they had won. Upon contacting the page, they were told the competition also ran on Instagram and a winner was picked from there. The complainant considered the post on Facebook misleading as it had not stated that the competition was running on several platforms.
Issue 2: The ASAI Executive noted that the post had not included any indication that the competition was restricted to over 18’s or that the prize would only be awarded to over 18’s.
|
Issue 1:
Upheld Issue 2: Upheld |
5.5, 5.17, 9.9(a) and 9.9(b) | https://www.asai.ie/complaint/alcohol-33/ |
Celtic Field Sports |
Online (Advertisers’ Own Website) |
Misleading / Substantiation |
The advertisers’ website promoted various hunts including Ibex goat hunting.
The complainant considered the reference to Ibex goats misleading as Ireland does not have this type of goat.
|
Upheld | 3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10 | https://www.asai.ie/complaint/leisure-31/ |
Horseware Products LTD |
Online (Company Own Website) |
Misleading / Substantiation |
The website promoted various products within three product ranges with a range of statements claiming the products enhanced horse wellbeing.
The complainant stated that the health claims made regarding certain products were not proven clinically.
|
Upheld |
4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10 |
https://www.asai.ie/complaint/health-animal-health/ |
Digiweb |
Online (Advertisers’ own website) |
Misleading / Substantiation |
The homepage of the website listed a 1000Mpbs product from €29.95 p/m.
The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as it had not stated the advertised price was only for 4 months and would increase to €59.95 after that period.
|
Upheld | 4.1, 4.4, 5.5, 5.16 | https://www.asai.ie/complaint/telecommunications-90/ |
Euro Car Parks Ireland Ltd |
Online (Advertisers’ Own Website) |
Misleading / Substantiation / Pricing |
The advertisers’ website on the Point Square parking page advertised the evening parking rate at €14.00 from 6:00pm – midnight.
The complainant considered the advertised evening parking rate of €14.00 misleading. When booking online, the price on the third-party booking website was €16.00 with an additional €2.00 surcharge totalling €18.00.
|
Upheld | 4.1, 4.4 and 4.23 | |
Energia |
Online (Third-Party) |
Misleading / Substantiation / Environmental Claims |
The advertisement stated “Energia’s Cheapest Electricity / 100% Renewable Electricity.”
Issue 1: The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as they considered the consumer would reasonably assume that the claim ‘100% green energy” suggested no fossil fuels were used in generating the electricity. They said that assuming the advertisers adhered to the relevant regulations, the electricity provided was generated using fossil fuels which were then offset (or greenwashed) using Guarantees of Origin.
Issue 2: The complainant considered that the advertisement was misleading as it omitted the fact electricity was generated with fossil fuels which were offset with Guarantees of Origin.
Issue 3: The complainant objected to the claim “100% Green” on the grounds that it was an absolute claim which could not be substantiated that it would cause no environmental damage.
Issue 4: The complainant considered the claim “Get 100% Green Energy to Your Home” misleading on the grounds that if the supplier was selling ‘dirty’ electricity to the consumer and offsetting it with Guarantees of Origin purchased elsewhere it was not possible to constitute green energy to a home.
|
Issues 1, 2 and 3:
Statement Issued Issue 4; Upheld |
4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10. 15.2 and 15.5 |
https://www.asai.ie/complaint/household-25/ |
SSE Airtricity |
Online (Advertisers’ Own Website) |
Misleading / Substantiation / Environmental Claims |
The complainants considered the advertisement’s claim to provide 100% green energy to their customers’ homes and businesses from a single energy market that was made up of both renewable and non-renewable sources as misleading as it was not possible to state their customers received 100% green energy
|
Upheld | 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10, 15.2 and 15.5 | https://www.asai.ie/complaint/household-27/ |
Flogas |
Radio and Online (Third Party Website) |
Misleading / Substantiation / Environmental Claims |
The complainants objected to the claims in the advertisement that Flogas provided “100% green electricity” to consumers as they understood that the electricity was sourced from the national grid made up of both renewable and non-renewable fuel sources. Therefore, making it not possible for the company to provide only renewable energy. |
Upheld | 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10, 15.2 and 15.5 | https://www.asai.ie/complaint/household-28/ |
The following advertisements were investigated and the ASAI Complaints Committee found that they did not breach the Code on the grounds raised in the complaints.
Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
Bauer Media |
Radio and Online (Company Own Website) |
Gambling
|
The competition was promoted throughout the day by presenters of each radio station within the advertisers’ network for ‘The Cash Machine.’
Issue 1: The complainants considered that it was misleading for the competition to have different names depending on the station it was on. They considered that listeners of only one radio station may not realise the competition is across multiple radio stations.
Issue 2: The complainants considered the use of the term ‘Giveaway’ by some presenters when referring to recent winners as misleading as there was a charge to enter.
|
Issue 1: Not Upheld Issue 2: Not Upheld
|
N/A
|
|
Crown Paints Ireland Ltd |
Television |
Decency & Propriety |
The television advert depicted a group of people singing a song about a couple called Hannah and Dave. The audience was told Hannah never wanted children but as the story progresses she changes her mind.
Issue 1: Complaints considered the lines “fine for at least a time” and “one day out of the blue, she stopped thinking ‘no’ – then she threw herself at Dave and said ‘come on let’s go’” implied that Hannah was forced to change her mind about her stance on having children.
Issue 2: Complainants considered the line “Hannah is hoping for a girl, Dave’s just hoping it’s his” as offensive and misogynistic. |
Issue 1: Not Upheld Issue 2: Not Upheld |
N/A |
|
Quooker |
Television |
Children |
The television advertisement depicted a video montage of people using the Quooker tap at various settings while the voiceover said “With a Quooker tap you always have 100 degrees boiling, hot, cold, filtered, chilled and sparkling water all from one tap.” The final clip showed a young boy using the tap on his own filling multiple bottles with water.
The complainants stated that the advertisement depicted a dangerous scenario in which a child could be scalded by using a tap which can dispense boiling water. |
Not Upheld |
N/A |
|
The ASAI chose to uphold in part two complaints made by an Intra-industry or Interested Party in the following cases:
Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
Aldi |
Television & Online (Advertisers’ Own Website) |
Misleading / Substantiation |
Three advertisements featured a couple discussing the savings they made by shopping in Aldi with a price comparison to Dunnes and SuperValu. Similar advertisements featured on the Aldi Website.
Issue 1: The complainant considered the campaign misleading as no evidence had been shown that any of the families in question actually swapped from Dunnes or Supervalu to Aldi. Issue 2: The complainant objected to the time periods used in the campaign. They noted that the shopping completed by the featured couple took place between the 3rd and 30th May 2021 and that prices were then compared with Dunnes / Supervalu on the 17th June 2021. They considered this misleading and not an accurate comparison. Issue 3: The complainant objected to the inclusion of other families on the advertisers’ website without substantiation or reference to savings made or products purchased. |
Issue 1: Not Upheld Issue 2: Upheld Issue 3: Upheld |
4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10 | |
Aldi |
Television & Online (Advertisers’ Own Website) |
Misleading / Substantiation |
Three advertisements featured a couple discussing the savings they made by shopping in Aldi with a price comparison to Dunnes and SuperValu. Similar advertisements featured on the Aldi Website.
Issue 1: The complainant considered that the premise of the campaign was misleading as the advertisement suggested families swapped from their existing retailer to Aldi which was not the case.
Issue 2: The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as the product and price comparison linked from the television ads and webpage only included information for one of the six families featured and no information on the savings made by the other families.
Issue 3: The complainant objected to the time periods used in the campaign given that grocery markets are subject to pricing movements and the comparison was not on the same day.
Issue 4: The complainant objected to some of the price comparisons chosen by Aldi and considered there were a number of instances where the retailers own brand product could have been chosen instead of the more expensive branded product.
Issue 5: The complainant objected to the advertisement on the grounds that they considered the savings referenced were overstated due to the fact some comparisons were incorrect and a directly substitutable and cheaper alternative could’ve been chosen.
|
Issue 1, Issue 4 and Issue 5: Not Upheld Issue 2 and Issue 3: Upheld
|
4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10 | https://www.asai.ie/complaint/retail-supermarket-11/ |
The ASAI chose to issue a statement in the following case:
Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
Energia |
Online (Company Own Website) |
Misleading / Substantiation / Environmental Claims |
The complainant considered that the claim to provide 100% green electricity to consumers was misleading as they were aware the company operated a gas-powered plant which provided energy to the grid and that it was from the grid customers were provided with their electricity. In this circumstance, they considered that the electricity provided to customers was made up of both renewable and non-renewable energy.
|
Statement Issued |
N/A |
https://www.asai.ie/complaint/household-26/ |
The ASAI conducts ongoing monitoring of advertising across all media and since 2007, has examined over 27,000 advertisements, with an overall compliance rate of 98 percent. The ASAI Monitoring Service monitors compliance with the Complaints Committee’s adjudications.
Media are reminded that advertisements found to be in breach of the Code cannot be accepted for publication.
Follow The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland on LinkedIn and Twitter @THE_ASAI