Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland releases latest Complaints Bulletin

The complainant considered the statement “the most active doctor in IVF in Ireland over the last 6 years and has been responsible for more successful IVF cycles than any other doctor in the country at that time” to be misleading. They asked what data and statistics were available to substantiate claims made in the advertisement.

Ford

Online on company website

Misleading / Substantiation / Prices

Issue 1:

The complainant considered that while the Ford Kuga model was advertised as starting from

€29,858.40, the delivery charges were not included in the cost.

Issue 2:

The complainant considered that while the Ford Kuga model had been advertised as starting

from €29,858.40, the VRT charges had not been included in the cost.

Issue 1 Not Upheld

Issue 2 Upheld

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/motoring-46/

The complainant said that bottles made from sugar cane created plastic and this resulted

in the exact same product the advertisers were claiming not to use.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/health-beauty-63/

Gallaghers Goldens

Online on Company Own Website

Misleading / Substantiation

The complainant said they purchased a Golden Retriever puppy from the advertisers, based on the good breeding practices outlined in their advertising, alongside their statement that their puppies were bred to the “highest standard”.

The complainant subsequently found out that the puppy which they had purchased was originally owned by a different breeder and sold on to Gallaghers Goldens.

Upheld

4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/pets/

Sicín Sásta

4.1 and 4.4.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/food-15/

CFM Group (Insure My Holiday)

Online on Company Website

Misleading / Substantiation

The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading. They set up and paid for travel insurance, contacted the advertisers to get confirmation that cruise cover was included, paid medical excess premium, and requested confirmation of cruise cover. They were advised by the advertisers that they did not provide cruise cover.

Upheld

4.1

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/insurance/

The complainant said that the product claimed to increase broadband capability. They considered it not to be a very good extender as it gave worse signal than the hub itself.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/telecommunications-86/

Issue 1:

A complainant considered that the image of the woman in the advertisement was unrealistic and could be misleading to someone young or vulnerable.

Issue 2:

A complainant noted that the footnote had stated that the procedure was for the treatment of obesity. They considered that the advertising was misleading as it implied that an obese person could achieve a muscular stomach after one or more 30-minute procedures.

Issue 3:

A complainant objected to the size and colour of the footnote as they considered the print size was too small to read and also noted that it was in a pale blue colour.

4.1, 4.4, 4.6, 4.9, 4.10 and 11.1

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/health-beauty-61/

The complainant considered the advertising very misleading. They were unable to get information from the advertisers on how to avail of the 20% offer. When they received a link from the 3rd party site, they were informed by the advertisers that the offer was no longer available.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/skin-treatments/

The complainant considered that the point-of-sale material advertising the offer was misleading. The offer advertised that if customers spent €109, they would receive a free bracelet. The complainant purchased a voucher for €110 and had expected to receive the free bracelet, however, they were advised that the offer only applied to the purchase of jewellery and not to vouchers.

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

Issue 1:

Complainants objected to the advertisement on the grounds that the vehicle was shown parked illegally on footpaths and on a double yellow line.

Issue 2:

Several complainants objected to the advertisement on the grounds that they considered it as ‘greenwashing’.

Issue 3:

Some complainants did not consider that the sustainability claim could be made when you took the car’s manufacture and operation into consideration.

Issue 4:

A complainant objected to the sustainability claims on the grounds that no evidence had been provided within the advertising for the claim.

Issue 5:

Some complainants considered that the term mild hybrid was misleading.

Issue 6:

One complainant objected to the sustainability claim as they had viewed information in the manufacturer’s brochure which stated that the Land Rover Defender diesel 110 MHEV had CO2 emissions of 230 to 250mg/km which they said was higher than several other high end diesel engine SUV’s.

Issues 3, 5 and 6 Not Upheld

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/motor-vehicles-2/

BSH Home Appliances Limited

The complainant said that they had made the decision to purchase an oven in the iQ500 range as the advertising had led them to believe that all iQ500 ovens came with the activeClean

feature. The oven did not have the feature.

The complainant considered that the advertising was misleading as it had not stated that the activeClean feature was not included in all models in the iQ500 range.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/domestic-appliances/

Alicia Lip filler Academy

Principles / Misleading / Substantiation

The complainant considered the information in the biography on the advertiser’s social media account to be misleading regarding her being a nurse, and that it was illegal to state this unless you are a registered nurse with the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland. Complainant considered that people were under the guise that they were having a cosmetic procedure by a professional and registered person, where this was not the case.

Upheld

3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10.

The complainant viewed the Lidl brochure and saw the advertisement for the Livarno Living Desk which featured an image of the desk with a storage unit attached, advertised at €49.99. The storage unit was not included with the desk and had to be purchased separately. As the image in the brochure featured the desk with the storage unit attached for the advertised price of €49.99, the complainant considered that the advertising was misleading.

4.1

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

Direct Mail (Email)

The complainant said that advertising a multibuy promotion for 0-to-6-month stage 1 infant formula was contrary to infant formula advertising guidelines and rules and should not be promoted in this way.

Auctioneera

The complaint considered the advertisement to be misleading. When he arrived to view the property, he said that he had to climb up a ladder leaning against a beam to get into one of the bedrooms and considered that a room which had to be accessed by a ladder could not be advertised as a bedroom.

PCR Business Solutions

Online (Third Party Advertising)

Issue 1:

The complainant objected to the advertising on the online shopping platform as the total price advertised did not include VAT.

Issue 2:

The complainant objected to the advertising on the online shopping platform as they noted that it claimed “Free Delivery”, however, on clicking through to the advertisers’ website, they stated that shipping costs were an additional charge.

Issue 2 Not Upheld

Issue 1:

The complainant considered that the post was misleading as the winner did not appear to have been announced when the influencer said that it would be.

Issue 2:

The complainant objected to the practice of winners being announced in stories rather than

the advertising post being edited to announce the winner.

Issue 2 Not Upheld

Diet and Lifestyles/ Nutrition and Health Claims

The complainant considered that the post in question encouraged viewers to believe that a large portion of Coco Pops and a full Fried Breakfast were better and therefore received far more “Stars” than a small portion of avocado on toast which only received one “Star”.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/food-beverages-food/

of Ireland

Issue 1:

The complainants considered that the advertising was encouraging viewers to purchase McDonald’s within the app.

Issue 2:

The complainants considered that the post was targeting young people as it was linking the app to the post and showing young school friends enjoying themselves.

Issue 3:

The complainants considered that the advertising was condoning eating ‘junk food’ outside of family mealtimes.

Issue 4:

The complainants considered that the advertisement was giving the impression that eating McDonald’s with your friends would help your social life.

An Post

Television

Principles / Misleading / Substantiation / Financial Services and Products

The complainant considered that the advertisement promoted An Post as being “more than a bank” despite the fact that An Post does not hold a banking licence from the Central Bank of Ireland.

The complainant considered that while An Post provided financial services through other entities that were licenced, this was not made clear in the advertisement. They believed, therefore, that the advertisement was misleading and could give rise to consumers believing that An Post was a bank.

Not Upheld

N/A

The complainant objected to the product being advertised as risk free and considered this was incorrect.

The complainant said that they had received an email, advertising flights to Cyprus. The complainant considered that the advertised headline from price of €39.99 was misleading as they were unable to find a flight from any Irish airport to Paphos at the advertised from price of €39.99.