Advertising Standards Authority Releases Latest Complaints Bulletin

The complainant did not consider that the content had been correctly disclosed as a marketing communication as the word ‘Ad’ did not have a hashtag and was in white font meaning it was not clearly visible.

• Website: Listed the shelving with the statement “Offer only available on Lidl Plus. Save €5”
• Brochure: Stated “14th–20th Nov Offer only available on Lidl Plus” and displayed “Save €5 / €19.99 €14.99 / Lidl Plus”
• POS Material: Displayed “Save €5 Lidl Plus” alongside the regular (€19.99) and Lidl Plus (€14.99) prices

The complainant considered the advertising misleading as it did not specify that the €5 discount was limited to one item per customer. The complainant purchased four shelving units expecting a €20 total discount but only received €5 off one unit. They argued that the limitation on the discount was not clearly disclosed in any of the promotional materials.

The ad featured two offers with various prices listed excluding tax.

The complainant queried whether the price should be inclusive of VAT.

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading, as when they entered their Eircode, they were informed that the service was available. However, when the delivery of bins was attempted, it was found that the address was actually outside the service area, and the advertised service could not be provided.

Another slide showed the product alongside claims such as “Professional-level results from home” and “Deep cleaning action reaches every corner.” A further slide stated “Professional Cleaning At Home.”

The complainant objected to the advertising on the grounds that the claims were misleading and potentially harmful as they could not be substantiated. The complainant expressed concern that consumers might be dissuaded from seeking professional dental care, believing that the device could treat or prevent serious dental conditions such as decay and gum disease.

The complainant considered the post to be in breach of the Code, as it had not been clearly identified as advertising material. They noted the absence of a primary disclosure label such as #Ad, which would indicate that the post was a marketing communication.

The complainant objected to the advertisement on the following grounds:

Issue 1:

The advertised 20% discount code (ULTRA20) did not work when they attempted to use it.

Issue 2:

The phrase “10 years of perfecting home security” implied that the product constituted a full security system capable of protecting property, whereas the complainant considered it to be comparable to CCTV equipment only.

Issue 3:

The same claim was also considered misleading because the advertiser’s security products were only introduced between 2020 and 2023, not over a 10-year period as suggested.

Issue 4:

The claim “4K Security” was considered misleading as recordings in 4K quality were only available via a paid subscription, a limitation not disclosed in the ad.

Issue 5:

The complainant argued that the term “Unmatched” in “Unmatched 4K Security” was inaccurate, as other comparable 4K systems were available on the market.

Issue 6:

The word “perfecting” was seen as implying the system was flawless, which the complainant disputed based on their own negative experience with the product.

The description included fictitious customer testimonials referring to drinking Buckfast before job interviews, weddings, and family gatherings, with one suggesting it was suitable for events such as funerals.

The complainant considered the advertisement irresponsible in its portrayal of alcohol consumption. They believed it breached Code section 9.5(a) by implying that alcohol could improve physical performance, personal qualities, or capabilities. They also cited a potential breach of Code section 9.5(e), arguing that references to drinking at funerals and relying on alcohol to “get through” family gatherings were inappropriate and failed to promote pro-social behaviour.

The complainant objected to the claims that the products were “smokeless”, “clean burning”, “carbon neutral” and “eco-friendly” on the grounds that the claims were misleading and had made environmental statements about the properties of the products, implying that burning of the products was harmless and made no contribution to air pollution or climate change.

The complainant objected to the placement of the advertisement, as it appeared during video game review content that they believed was primarily viewed by children.

The complainant objected to the placement of the advertisement, as it appeared during video game review content that they believed was primarily viewed by children.

Issue 1:

The complainant considered the claim that the development was in the “heart” of Douglas was misleading as it was at least half an hour walk from Douglas Village Shopping Centre.

Issue 2

The complainant said the development was located in Castletreasure and the full address of the development was not included in the advertisement.