Advertising Standards Authority Releases Latest Complaints Bulletin

A six-second video featured a bird’s eye view of a car driving up a county road. The voiceover stated “Make a better choice when you fill up at Maxol”, with the website address ‘maxolcarbonneutral.ie’ displayed at the end.

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as they believed the environmental and climate claims in the advertisement suggested that the fuel was carbon neutral which the complainant stated was not the case.

They said the claims failed to account for the fuel’s full lifecycle and broader environmental impact, and questioned the effectiveness of the carbon offsetting schemes used, describing them as potentially misleading and a form of greenwashing.

An online property listing described the property as a ‘3 Bed. 1 Bath. Terrace’ and a ‘superb three-bedroomed property’.

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as they believed one of the rooms did not meet the requirements to be used as a bedroom, as it lacked a compliant fire escape. They stated that the room only had a single means of escape via the door and that its sole external opening was a skylight, which they believed did not constitute an escape opening.

A post on the advertiser’s’ own TikTok account featured a woman speaking about the best way to claim compensation in Ireland and directing viewers to claimsboard.ie.

The complainant objected to the advertisement on the grounds that it gave the impression that the advertisers were the Injuries Resolution Board.

The advert consisted of two TikTok videos promoting the product Blue Bomb.

Advert 1:

The first video featured a number of claims around the product Blue Bomb including ‘Cooling eye and skincare stick designed to support women through perimenopause and menopause’ and ‘it helps to calm hot, red, flushed skin and is safe to use around the eyes to reduce puffiness and dark circles’.

Advert 2:

A second video for Blue Bomb stated ‘Blue Bomb is perfect for anyone experiencing symptoms of perimenopause’ and ‘there’s collagen in this as well which is great for the skin.’

Issue 1:

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as they believed references to perimenopause, menopause and hot flushes amounted to medical claims for a cosmetic product and suggested that it could treat or alleviate menopausal symptoms.

Issue 2:

The complainant considered the claim that Blue Bomb contained collagen misleading, as collagen was not listed among the product’s ingredients.

A sponsored social media advertisement featured an image of a sachet of a product and included the statement ‘Plain water only hydrates your bloodstream, electrolytes: sodium, magnesium and potassium, draw it into your cells where it is truly needed’.

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as they believed the claim incorrectly suggested that plain water could not provide cellular hydration and that electrolyte supplements were necessary for this purpose

An advertisement featured on the advertisers own Instagram profile discussing common midlife skin concerns. The advertisement included the statement ‘after 40, we lose 30% of our skin’s collagen in just five years.’

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as they believed the claim inaccurately suggested that women lost 30% of their skin’s collagen within five years of turning 40, rather than collagen loss occurring gradually and potentially accelerating following menopause.

The advertisement featured on the advertiser’s own website offering professional dry-cleaning services, including a special offer of €11 for a two-piece suit.

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as they were charged €19 when collecting their suit and were told that the €11 price displayed on the website was out of date.

A marketing email from Therapie Clinic promoting a discounted upgrade to its laser hair removal packages stated ‘From just €29.95 get Full Body Laser Hair Removal’ and encouraged existing customers to ‘Upgrade Full Body Laser Hair Removal from only €29.95.’

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as they understood the offer to provide full body laser hair removal for €29.95 per session, but were later informed that it only covered additional areas for customers who had already purchased specific laser hair removal treatments.

Advert 1:

The first advertisement featured the statement ‘We Buy Any Car – We offer the best cash price for your car in Ireland’.

Advert 2:

The second advertisement featured the statement ‘Sell your car in minutes – Enter your Reg. No. & Autobuy Delivers a Simple Solution To Get You Paid Today.  Any Make, Any Model, Any Condition…’

The complainant considered the claim ‘we buy any car’ misleading as they had attempted to sell their car but were refused due to an intermittent starting issue that could not be diagnosed.

A YouTube video for 20Bet featured a cartoon-style, candy-themed village with bright colours, cupcakes, ice cream and an animated character. The advertisement promoted a ‘Welcome Package’ followed by prices.

Issue 1:

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as the branding was unclear and the advertiser was not sufficiently identifiable. They noted that the on-screen text was difficult to read and that viewers were instead told to remember the logo and find the advertiser online.

Issue 2:

The complainant considered the advertisement irresponsible as its cartoon imagery, bright colours and confectionery themes could appeal to children.

Issue 3:

The ASA Executive noted that the advertisement did not appear to include a responsible gambling message or information directing consumers to a source of information about gambling responsibly.

Advert 1:

A sponsored social media advertisement for Aevrae’s collagen face masks featured the brand’s founder, discussing positive customer feedback and describing Aevrae as a ‘small Irish brand’. She highlighted support from women across Ireland and promoted a ‘buy 2 get one free’ offer, alongside a free collagen brush and skincare e-book.

Advert 2:

The advertiser’s social media profile described the business as ‘Irish-run.’

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as they believed they were supporting an Irish brand, but discovered that their order was being shipped from China.

The advertisement appeared on the exterior of a bus and stated ‘LET’S GO JAPAN. Polite. Organised. Clean up after themselves. The exact opposite of England’, alongside a fallen England flag.

The complainant considered the advertisement racist and derogatory towards English people, particularly as they spotted the advertisement on the exterior of a bus while at the airport.

A YouTube advertisement for Hell Spin, an online casino platform, featured fantasy-style game characters, including warriors, weapons and a female character holding a large hammer. Parts of the Hell Spin branding and promotional text were blurred.

Issue 1:

The complainant considered the advertising misleading as the blurred branding made it unclear that the advertisement was promoting a gambling service. They also stated that the voiceover encouraged viewers to “remember the logo and find us online”. They considered that the advertisement was unhealthily holding a viewer’s attention without clearly stating it was for a gambling service.

Issue 2:

The complainant considered that the fantasy-style characters and gaming imagery used in the advertisement were likely to appeal to younger viewers.

Issue 3:

The ASA Executive noted that no responsible gambling message was visible in the available screenshots of the advertisement.

The advertising appeared as a sponsored social media post for an online pharmacy featuring an infant formula product labelled ‘First Milk 0–12 months’, with a ‘Shop now’ button allowing consumers to purchase the product online.

The complainant considered the advertisement in breach of the Code as it promoted first infant formula directly to consumers, which they believed was prohibited from being advertised.

A promotional banner on the Falls Hotel website stated ‘Summer Sale – Book before May 31st for 10% OFF! Code SUMMER26’.

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as it did not state that terms and conditions applied, and the promotional code was declined when they attempted to book a Saturday night stay in August before the deadline of May 31^st.

A mobile pop-up on the TEMU website offered users ‘2 gifts’ at ‘100% OFF’, with the offer described as being for ‘App New Users Only’ and ‘minimum purchased required’.

The complainant considered the offer of two free gifts for ‘App New Users Only’ to be misleading, as they understood this to mean customers who were new users of the TEMU app. After downloading the app and signing in, however, they were informed that the offer was only available to ‘app new users with new devices.’

The complainant subsequently contacted the advertiser and was told they were ineligible because they were an existing TEMU customer. They considered this misleading because, although they were not a new TEMU customer, they were a new user of the app, and the advertisement did not clearly state that existing TEMU customers were excluded from the promotion.

A poster displayed on the window of a restaurant advertised its grand opening and included the statement ‘50% off all day from 11am to 11pm’ in both English and Chinese.

Two complaints were received against the advertisement.

The complainants considered the advertisement misleading as they understood the statement to mean that customers would receive an immediate 50% discount on purchases made that day. However, they were informed upon payment that the promotion instead provided a 50% rebate as a voucher for a future visit, which was not made clear in the original advertisement.

The complaint concerned a promotional ‘Back to School’ brochure, which was also available online. The brochure prominently featured the slogan ‘Is this? IRELAND’S CHEAPEST CHEMIST’ beneath the advertiser’s logo, with ‘IRELAND’S CHEAPEST CHEMIST’ displayed in bold yellow text on a red background. It promoted a range of products, many of which were advertised with discounts, including percentage reductions off the recommended retail price (RRP) or half-price offers.

Issue 1

The complainant argued that the claim ‘Ireland’s Cheapest Chemist’ was an unsubstantiated superlative claim, giving consumers the impression that the advertiser was definitively cheaper than every other chemist in Ireland. They said no evidence, data, or methodology was provided to support the claim, making it misleading.

Issue 2

The complainant also argued that the bold headline ‘Ireland’s Cheapest Chemist’ could be interpreted by consumers as a seal of quality or an independent accolade, rather than a marketing slogan, and was therefore likely to mislead.

The advertiser’s website featured a banner displaying several safes, alongside claims about its service such as ‘Free Nationwide Doorstep Delivery’. Consumers could then browse products by selecting ‘Insurance Rating Safes’ under the ‘Shop by Category’ section, where safes could be filtered by price and cash or valuables insurance rating.

A competitor complained that at least half of the safes advertised with insurance ratings were not certified to the European burglary resistance standard (EN1143-1), which they said is the minimum standard required for contents to be insurable in Ireland and much of Europe. They also claimed that the advertised insurance ratings were inaccurate, providing industry and An Garda Síochána guidance to support their claims. The issue came to light after one of their customers almost purchased an uncertified safe based on the advertised insurance rating.

A social media post on Aer Lingus’ LinkedIn page promoted its use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), stating that SAF typically has approximately 80% lower carbon emissions than traditional jet fuel over its lifecycle. The accompanying video described SAF as ‘the most effective and immediate way aviation can reduce its environmental impact’ and outlined Aer Lingus’ plans to increase its use of SAF in Dublin.

Issue 1:

The complainant considered the claim that SAF was ‘the most effective and immediate way aviation can reduce its environmental impact’ misleading, saying that it was an absolute claim and that the growth in air travel was outweighing the environmental benefits of technologies such as SAF.

Issue 2:

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as it did not adequately explain the limitations and environmental concerns associated with SAF, including its limited availability and the challenges involved in scaling its use.

Issue 3:

The complainant referred to action taken by European consumer authorities regarding environmental claims made by airlines, arguing that SAF is a broad term covering different types of fuels with varying environmental impacts and that the advertisement did not adequately explain or substantiate the environmental benefits of the particular SAF being promoted.

The advertisement featured a number of advertisements where individual customers spoke about the savings they achieved after switching their car insurance to the advertiser.

Two complaints were received.

Issue 1:

Both complainants considered the advertisement misleading because it suggested consumers could save €200–€300 by switching to the advertiser. However, both said they had received quotes that were significantly higher than their existing insurance premiums. One was quoted €900 compared with €446, while the other was quoted €800 compared with approximately €560. They therefore considered that the advertising could give consumers a misleading impression of the savings they were likely to achieve.

Issue 2:

The complainants also questioned the authenticity and substantiation of the savings claims featured in the advertisement. One stated that the individuals featured had been paid and that their claimed savings had not been independently verified. They considered that the lack of transparency could mislead consumers about the validity of the advertised savings.

The advertisements formed part of PhoneWatch’s Phobia campaign and consisted of online video and radio advertisements featuring a fictional burglar, Trevor, attending therapy because PhoneWatch alarms were making it difficult for him to burgle homes.

Two complaints were received.

One complainant believed the radio advertisement trivialised the crime of burglary and the trauma experienced by victims.

The second complaint, who had experienced a traumatic break-in, felt the online advertisement glamorised burglary and could potentially rekindle trauma for viewers.

The advert was a television campaign for Cadbury Dairy Milk featuring a woman receiving a bar of chocolate from her sister, alongside the slogan ‘There’s a glass and a half in everyone’.

Three complainants were received.

The complainants considered the slogan ‘There’s a glass and a half in everyone’ alongside an image of a glass and a half of milk pouring onto a square of chocolate as misleading as they did not believe that there was that proportion of dairy content in the advertised product. Two of the complainants believed that milk in the product had been substantially substituted with palm oil.

A sponsored Facebook post for An Post Insurance promoting home insurance, featuring an image of a fallen tree with houses in the background and the claim ‘Because you can’t control the weather, but you can control your cover.’

The complainant considered the advertising misleading as they had attempted to claim for damage to a hedge caused by a fallen tree following a storm. They said that the claim was refused as they were told that the insurance did not cover this unless the fallen tree had caused damage to a building.

They believed the advertising to have been misleading as it depicted a fallen tree that was, in their opinion, not near a building.