Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland releases latest Complaints Bulletin

The complainant considered the man featured on the paddle board not wearing a life jacket was against the law. They considered that the ad could encourage people to not wear a lifejacket when using watercrafts which may result in loss of life.

Bongo Operations Pty

Social Media (Influencers own page)

Principles

The complainant objected that the posts, which they considered were advertisements, did

not include an appropriate # such as #ad to disclose that the posts were advertisements.

SOSU (Suzanne Jackson)

Online (Social Media)

The complainant said that the post suggested that the model’s dramatic eye look had

been created by her using the mascara and kohl pencil featured, when in fact she was

wearing false eyelashes. The complainant considered the post to be misleading.

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/health-beauty-beauty-2/

Renewell Water Limited

The complainant considered the advertising to be scaremongering as it gave the false impression that tap water is unsuitable for drinking.

Issue 1:

The complainant queried the testing process which had taken place on the Influencer’s tap

water as they believed that no information had been provided on same. They said the

instrumentation used in the process gave consumers the false impression that the water was ‘dirty.’

Issue 2

The complainant said that no testing had been conducted on the filtered water or

information provided on how it compared to the tap water.

Issue 3

The complainant considered it to be inappropriate for an untrained person to give advice

on drinking water quality without the inclusion of fact-based evidence.

Online (Third Party Social Media)

Gambling

2 complaints were received against 4 posts on social media.

Issue 1:

One complainant objected to Post 1 on the grounds that it had not included a

responsibility message and a direction to a source of information about gambling and

gambling responsibly.

Issue 2:

One complainant objected to Post 2, Post 3 and Post 4 on the grounds that the posts appeared to be news content when in fact they were advertisements.

Issue 3:

One complainant objected to Post 2, Post 3 and Post 4 on the grounds that the posts could be accessed by any demographic on the social media site.

Issue 2 and 3 Not Upheld.

Online (Third Party Advertising)

Misleading / Substantiation

misleading and questioned what criteria was used for the basis of the claim.

Upheld

4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.33

Online (Influencer Social Media Page)

Misleading / Health and Beauty

The complainant considered that the reference to #acneremoval in the advertisement

alluded to the fact that the device would cure acne which they considered to be

misleading.

MSL Motors

Online (Influencer Social Media Page)

Principles

ambassador for the car brand but had not included any disclosure of this on the post.

Upheld

3.31 and 3.32

Sky Ireland

Online (Advertisers Own Website)

Misleading

The complainant viewed the advertisement on the 21st of November and noted that the

price for the TV element was increasing on the 1st of December, therefore, the price

would be increasing during the first month of a subscription. The complainant

considered that the advertised price of €60 a month for 12 months was misleading if the price was going to increase during the first month.

Upheld

4.1 and 4.22

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/telecommunications-88/

The complainant considered that advertisement promoted the consumption of alcohol

and was misleading by suggesting that alcohol:

Issue 1:

Was in some way good for you.

Issue 2:

Was low in calories.

Issue 3:

The complainant also considered that this type of marketing could be extremely

harmful to someone in the early stages of recovery from alcohol addiction.

Issue 4:

The ASAI Executive noted that the advertisement had not included a

responsibility message.

Issue 2 and 3 Not Upheld.

McCabes Pharmacy

Internet (Social Media)

Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages

The complainant considered that Stage 1 Infant Formula was not permitted to be advertised in

the interest of protecting breast feeding.

Upheld

8.31

The complainant objected to the advertisement as they believed that Stage 1 Infant Formula

was not permitted to be advertised.

Upheld

8.31

Online (Influencer Social Media Account and Third-Party Website)

The complainants objected to

the advertising on the grounds that it was misleading to describe the product as “Vegan

Chicken” as the complainants believed that it was a breach of EU law to associate an

animal product with a vegan food.

Another complainant considered that consumers associated the word ‘chicken’ with meat and that the advertisement was

misleading.

Upheld

3.14, 4.1 and 4.4

Issue 1:

The complainant considered the advertisement

misleading and could

be substantiated, particularly as they noted that no source had been provided for the claim:

Issue 2:

The complainant challenged whether the claim “LactiGo is proven to increase

performance in 45 mins of use from the first time you use it.” could be substantiated and questioned where the claim originated.

Issue 3:

The complainant challenged whether the claim “Up to 15% increase in performance by

elite athletes after one application (Journal of exercise physiology).” had been

substantiated by the referenced Journal as they considered that the claim was misleading.

Issue 4:

The complainant questioned whether the claim “Reduces levels of lactate build up” had been substantiated and asked how the levels had been measured.

Issue 5:

The complainant challenged whether the claim “LactiGo users ran up to 9 seconds

faster,” could be substantiated and they requested evidence for the claim.

Issue 1 and 4 Upheld.

Issue 2, 3 and 5 Not Upheld.

JTI Ireland

Outdoor (Roadside 48/12 sheet)

Principles /   Misleading / Children

Issue 1

The complainant considered the use of the terms ‘enjoy’ and ‘fresh’ in conjunction with a nicotine product,

as ill-advised and out of step with medical advice.

Issue 2

One complainant considered that the product should not have been advertised on a busy road where all ages could view the content of the advertisement

Not Upheld

N/A

https://www.asai.ie/complaint/miscellaneous-nicotine-pouch/

Principles / Children

Issue 1:

The complainant considered the depiction of the older child being ignored suggested that a mobile phone was a replacement for a lack of parents’ attention.

Issue 2:

The complainant considered that the advertisement suggested that teenagers were not included in family life unless they had

a mobile phone.

Issue 3:

The complainant considered that the advertisement suggested that mobile phones were a way of parents managing

children’s emotional difficulties.

Issue 4:

The complainant considered that the advertisement suggested parents should purchase mobile phones for their children.

Not Upheld

N/A