Advertising Standards Authority releases latest Complaints Bulletin
- 11 advertisements across Online, Social Media, Outdoor and Email were found to be in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority Code on grounds related to a range of issues including Misleading, Principles, Fear and Distress, Promotional Marketing Practices, Substantiation and Health and Beauty
- In one case the Complaints Committee issued a Statement
The Advertising Standards Authority’s independent Complaints Committee has released its latest Complaints Bulletin, which contains 16 case reports on complaints recently investigated by the organisation.
11 of the 16 cases were upheld in full. Advertisements across Online, Social Media, Outdoor and Email were found to be in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority Code on grounds related to Misleading, Principles, Fear and Distress, Promotional Marketing Practices, Substantiation and Health and Beauty. One case resulted in a Statement being issued with advice for future advertising. The Advertising Standards Authority chose not to uphold four complaints.
The Complaints Committee is a completely independent arm of the Advertising Standards Authority 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 – https://adstandards.ie/about-us/
Commenting on the latest Advertising Standards Authority rulings, Orla Twomey, Chief Executive of the Advertising Standards Authority, stated:
“The role of the Advertising Standards Authority is to protect consumers from advertising that is harmful, offensive, or misleading. The latest complaints bulletin highlights the important role we play in the Irish advertising landscape, ensuring that all marketing communications adhere to the high standards of the Code.
We will continue to encourage care and compliance in the advertising industry, removing advertising that is in breach of the Code and educating consumers and brands about Irish advertising standards -fostering trust in advertising for all.
We provide a free and confidential copy advice service to advertisers so they can create responsible ads that adhere to the advertising code. If advertisers or agencies have any concerns about an advertisement or marketing communications’ compliance with the code, they can contact us to avail of that service.”
Below is a list of 11 advertisements that have been found to be in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority Code:
| Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
|
Sevdaserv Limited (Local 24/7 Locksmith) |
Online (Advertiser’s Own Website) |
Misleading / Price |
An advertisement appeared on the homepage of the advertiser’s website listing a range of services and their prices.
The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as when they had their door lock changed by the business, they were charged €860 for a door lock change that was worth €20.
|
Upheld | 3.10, 4.01, 4.04 and 4.22 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/household-34// |
|
NetSmart – Network Security |
Online (Advertiser’s Social Media) |
Misleading / Substantiation |
An advertisement was shared on Facebook as a sponsored post. It featured text referring to competitors increasing their prices whilst the advertiser had lowered theirs. An image alongside the post featured a graph which depicted other service provider prices increasing and Network Security prices decreasing.
The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading as no evidence was shown to demonstrate that other service providers had increased their prices, or that the advertiser lowered theirs.
|
Upheld |
4.01, 4.04, 4.09, 4.10, 4.31, 4.32 and 4.33 |
|
| Motor Distributors Limited (BYD) |
Outdoor (Poster) / Online (Advertiser’s Own Website and Advertiser’s Social Media) |
Misleading / Promotional Marketing |
An advertisement was initially seen in one of the advertiser’s vehicle dealerships and stated ‘cooling the earth by 1°C’. This claim was also seen on the advertiser’s X account as text accompanying a video of one of their electric vehicles and featured on the advertiser’s website.
The complainant objected to the claim and mission statement within the advertisement as the information was not supported by any independent scientific study. The complainant considered the advertisement to be greenwashing and misleading as it would not be possible to cool the entire planet by 1°C by electrifying urban transport, nor would it be possible if all road transport was electrified
|
Upheld | 4.01, 4.04, 4.09, 4.10, 15.02 and 15.05 | |
|
Ozone Nightclub Athlone |
Online (Advertiser’s Social Media) |
Misleading / Promotional Marketing |
An advertisement was posted on Instagram promoting a giveaway for two tickets to the Taylor Swift Eras Tour, encouraging followers to like, share, follow and tag their friends to enter the competition.
The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading as no end date was given by which a competitor had to enter, and that no response was received when they asked the advertiser about this.
|
Upheld | 4.01, 4.04, 5.30(a) and 5.32 | |
| Sixth Rent a Car Ireland | Online (Advertiser’s Website) | Misleading / Availability |
An advertisement was seen on the advertiser’s website listing various vehicles for rent, some of which were marked as being ‘guaranteed’ vehicles whilst others were marked as being that vehicle ‘or similar’.
The vehicle at the centre of this complaint was a BMW X5 SUV which was listed on the website as a ‘guaranteed model’.
The complainant said that having seen the BMW X5 advertised as a ’guaranteed vehicle’, on the advertiser’s website, they made a booking to rent the car for an upcoming trip. However, they noticed on the advertiser’s app that the vehicle was marked as ‘or similar’ after the booking was made.
The complainant contacted the advertiser for clarification and was told the vehicle was not a guaranteed model, and that the renter would receive a similar available vehicle. The complainant therefore considered the advertisement to be misleading.
|
Upheld | 4.01, 4.04, 4.27 and 4.28(a)(b) | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/motoring-56/ |
| Jurassic Newpark | Online (Advertiser’s Social Media) | Misleading / Promotional Marketing |
An advertisement was posted on Instagram with the caption ‘give the gift of adventure with an annual pass’, and included a special offer of a ‘complimentary night’s stay in any one of our luxurious Flynn hotels’ for anyone that purchased an Annual Pass.
The complainant believed the advertisement to be misleading as upon enquiring about the complimentary night’s stay, they were informed the offer was only available for stays during January to March 2024, from Sunday to Thursday.
The complainant said this information was not listed in the Instagram post, and, therefore, created the impression that the offer of the complimentary stay could be redeemed at any time throughout the year.
|
Upheld | 4.01, 4.04, 5.15 (a)-(i), 5.16 and 5.17 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/leisure-36/ |
| Munster Joinery | Online (Digital Brochure) | Principles / Misleading |
An advertisement was seen in two digital brochures on the advertiser’s own website. The first brochure promoted window and door fittings, including brass, chrome, black and white.
A second brochure featured an image of a door knocker and door handle and listed polished, chrome, or brass finishes in relation to the ironmongery offered for door finishes.
The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading as although fittings were advertised as brass or polished brass, it was a brass overspray on top of an unknown metal.
When the complainant contacted the advertiser, the advertiser confirmed that the fittings were not brass but featured brass overspray.
|
Upheld | 4.01, 4.04, 4.09 and 4.10 |
|
| ANuMe Medical | Online (Influencer’s Social Media) | Health and Beauty |
An influencer posted to Instagram with a competition offering a ‘free consultation and Botox treatment’ with the advertiser.
The complainant said that Botox is a prescription only medication that shouldn’t be advertised as part of a competition.
|
Upheld | 11.16 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/
health-beauty-69/ |
| Amber Surgery | Online (Influencer’s Social Media) | Principles / Health and Beauty |
An influencer answered a question from a follower on their Instagram stories about oxygen treatment.
The influencer responded saying they believed oxygen treatment is beneficial for any type of surgery recovery, to start it a few weeks in advance (of surgery), and to contact the advertiser and tell them ‘[the influencer] sent you’.
The complainant, a doctor, said oxygen is a drug that needs to be prescribed, and that they considered advising a person to use oxygen without knowing their medical history was ill advised. They also noted that the influencer is a brand ambassador for the advertiser.
|
Upheld | 3.03 | |
|
Carraig Donn |
|
Misleading |
An email advertisement featured a flash sale offering ‘20% off everything*’, with the asterisk linking to text stating ‘T&C’s apply, full price stock only, exclusions apply, Valid until Monday 30th’.
The complainant said that ’everything’ should mean a discount off ‘everything’ without exception, and that they had spent a considerable amount of time adding items to their cart only to be informed at checkout that the discount / sale did not apply to many of the items.
|
Upheld |
4.01, 4.04 and 4.06 |
The Advertising Standards Authority received one complaint from an Intra-industry or Interested Party:
| Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
|
PhoneWatch |
Outdoor Poster |
Fear and Distress / Misleading
|
An advertisement on an outdoor billboard on Kennedy Street in Carlow said ‘211 burglaries in Carlow over the last year’ with further text below promoting the advertiser and a special promotion free pack installation.
A complaint was received from an interested party who stated that the advertisement was false, misleading, and deceptive as the figure was based on Central Statistics Office figures for Carlow and Kilkenny combined. The complainant also believed the advertisement had a negative impact on public perception and feelings of safety in Carlow as a result.
|
Upheld |
3.23, 4.01, 4.04, 4.09 and 4.10 |
|
The Advertising Standards Authority chose to issue a statement in the following case:
| Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
|
Nomadic Foods Ltd |
Online (Advertiser’s Own Website) |
Misleading |
An advertisement on the homepage of the advertiser’s website promoted various yoghurt oat products with text referring to these products including ‘real ingredients.’
The complainant objected to the use of ‘real ingredients’ on the website as they noted one of the products included ingredients such as glucose-fructose syrup, sweetened condensed milk, glycerol monostearate and potassium sorbate.
|
Statement Issued | N/A |
The Advertising Standards Authority did not uphold four complaints
| Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
|
St Patrick’s Mental Health Services |
Radio |
Principles / Misleading
|
An advertisement on radio featured a variety of statements including: “Mental health difficulties can affect anyone, but with the right supports, you can recover” and “At St. Patrick’s Mental Health Services, we provide specialised care online and in person”.
The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading as they said it claimed the advertiser helped all sufferers recover, however, the complainant believed the advertiser chose their patients and rejected those they cannot treat.
|
Not Upheld | N/A | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/health-beauty-70/
|
|
Homecare Foods Ltd. t/a Wiltshire Farm Foods |
Radio |
Misleading |
A radio advertisement featured a distinctive Irish voice describing the brand, mentioning they are “based in Dublin”.
Two complaints were received regarding the advertisement.
One complainant believed that the statement ‘based in Dublin’ was incorrect and misleading as the company being promoted was based in the UK.
The second complainant said the use of a well-known Irish voice created the impression the products were Irish, particularly in combination with the line ‘based in Dublin’. The complainant felt the advertisement could mislead listeners into thinking they were supporting an Irish business selling Irish made products.
|
Not Upheld |
N/A |
|
|
Domino’s Pizza UK and Ireland Limited |
Television | Misleading |
An advertisement campaign featured a series of vignettes depicting people fighting over pizza. One advertisement featured young men pushing each other as they ran to the front door to the delivery man, another advertisement featured an older woman putting a young man in a headlock as they fought to reach the pizza on the floor.
Three complaints were received about the advertisements.
Issue 1: The complainants all believed that the ads promoted and condoned violence. One complainant said the woman placing a young man in a headlock trivialised the issue of domestic violence against men.
Issue 2: One complaint believed that the advertisements endorsed the idea that violence was acceptable and that young people and children may have seen the advertisements.
|
Issue 1: Not Upheld Issue 2: Not Upheld |
N/A | |
|
Vodafone Ireland Limited |
Television |
Principles / Safety |
An advertisement featured a man video calling his niece on a journey home from his sea swim. In the advertisement, he is sitting in the passenger seat of a car and extends his arm toward the centre console, pointing the phone toward the driver to show his niece on video call.
The complainant objected to the advertisement on the basis they felt it did not take into consideration the possible consequences of distracting a driver with a mobile phone.
|
Not Upheld |
N/A |
The Advertising Standards Authority 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 Advertising Standards Authority 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.
Visit adstandards.ie to learn more
To keep up to date on Advertising Standards Authority activity, follow the organisation on:
Instagram @adstandardsireland
LinkedIn @Ad-Standards-Ireland
