Advertising Standards Authority releases latest Complaints Bulletin

Online (Third Party Website)

The advertisement appeared on a property website and featured images of a house which was described as being a detached, two-storey residence with three bedrooms and two bathrooms.

The complainant considered it misleading to advertise the house as a three-bedroom property when it only had two bedrooms.

Lisney Sothebys International Realty

Online (Third Party Website)

Misleading Advertising

The advertisement appeared on a property website and featured images of a house which was detailed as being detached, 100 m², and having three bedrooms and two bathrooms.

The complainant considered it misleading to advertise a house as having three bedrooms when it only had two.

Upheld

4.01, 4.04, 4.09 and 4.10

https://adstandards.ie/complaint/property-17/

A sponsored advertisement on Facebook for the Dyson Supersonic Nural Hair Dryer depicted the hair dryer and its various attachments resting on a display case for the product.

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading on the basis that the product had been depicted with a display case that was not included in the price

for sale.

The webpage titled ‘Our Stones’ featured a number of claims including  “100% Conflict Free Diamonds” and  “Our stones are lab created simulants and the perfect alternative to mined gemstones. Lab grown diamonds are the only true conflict-free diamonds.”

The complainant considered that the advertising was misleading as they considered that the claims that the stones were 100% conflict free diamonds and were lab created simulants, led consumers to believe that the stones were diamonds when they were not.

The advertisement featured an image of a can of Wurth Ultra 2040 Spray. The text accompanying the image referred to the following: “Magic Orf Spray…One spray of this Ultra 2040 is excellent at killing Orf…”

The complainant considered that there was no basis to the claim that one spray of the oil lubricant could kill Orf which they said was caused by a virus. The complainant queried whether the advertisers had any scientific evidence to substantiate their claim.

https://adstandards.ie/complaint/agriculture-2/

The Influencer posted three advertisements on their Instagram account on behalf of Women’s Best with the following identification text: “@womensbest brand ambassador”, “@womensbest ba” and “brand ambassador”.

Two complainants raised concerns that the advertising material had not been identified correctly as marketing communications and had the potential to mislead consumers.

The advertisement featured an image of a pregnant woman alongside text which stated “What sets our Egg Donation Program Apart?” Included in the various reasons was the following statement: “…We guarantee 2 Blastocyst Embryos*”

The asterisk was linked to the following information:

*Should only 1 Blastocyst Embryo be produced, a credit of €1,000 applies. Should no Blastocyst Embryos be produced, the second set of eggs will be provided at no charge. If a third set of eggs is provided but no Blastocyst Embryo is produced, we will refund 50%. For more information…”

The complainant said that while the advertisement had referred to the fact that the clinic guaranteed 2 Blastocyst Embryos, the asterisked information had contradicted this.

.

The advertisement was a post on Ladybird Driving School’s Facebook page which claimed that their school had the highest pass rate nationwide for pupils passing their driving test. The post included the following two statements:

‘132 pupils passed their driving test in July..’ and

‘Anyone looking at this post will understand that Ladybird has the highest Passrate (sic) nationwide’.

The complainant considered the advertising misleading as they said that unless the advertiser could show they had a higher number of former students successful in passing their driving tests compared to other driving schools, they could not claim to have the highest pass rate nationwide.

The advertisement was seen on the advertisers’ website and promoted “Dublin’s most luxurious swimming pool”.

The website wording stated: “Unlike normal swimming pools in Dublin, our Sandymount swimming pool does not use heavily chlorinated water. Instead, the pool is continuously filled with only natural

seawater.”

The complainant considered the statement that the swimming pool was only filled with natural seawater to be incorrect and misleading as no mention was made that the water contained chlorine. The complainant believed that chlorine was used as they suffered a reaction after swimming in the pool.

The webpage included the following description of the course:

“Our QQI Medical Secretary Course is designed for learners who wish to gain a recognised qualification as a medical secretary to enable them to begin work in a new role.”

The complainant said they signed up to the QQI Medical Secretary course (level 5) as advertised. On completion of the course, the advertisers provided them with a virtual certificate which stated, “Medical Secretary”. On receipt of the physical certificate however, the title of the course was listed as “Medical Terminology”.

The complainant said that while they had studied medical terminology as part of the course, this was not the title of the course they had signed up to.

The advertisement was seen on the advertisers’ own website and featured imagery which depicted the various style of alarms customers could purchase. Large, red font at the top of the web page stated, “Get the alarm burglars fear the most”.

The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading as they said that the statement that the alarm was feared the most by burglars was not backed up by evidence in the form of research or statistics.

The website included a number of statements such as: “Unlike traditional cancer treatments like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery, DCT offers multiple advantages… and “The majority of specialists are unaware of this therapy as it is not yet mainstream in common pathways. As with all new methods, it takes time to convince a large part of the medical profession…”

The home page included a graph titled “Cancer Survival Rates at Immucura” which outlined the 1-year survival rates for stage IV of various cancers.

Issue 1:

The complainant considered that the reference and comparison to mainstream cancer treatments could be considered as discouraging treatment.

Issue 2:

The complainant considered that the success rates in the advertisement could be

considered as overstated.

Issue 3:

The complainant questioned the qualifications of those who administered the treatment.

Issue 2: Upheld

Issue 3: Upheld

The advertisements were in-store posters and online advertising which featured young men on motorcycles, and other close-up details of the vehicles.

35 complaints were received against the advertising.

Issue 1:

Many of the complainants felt that the images of the young men on motorbikes were aggressive and that the advertising tacitly condoned and glamorised young men and teenagers being part of a gang and engaging in antisocial behaviours.

Issue 2:

Some complainants took issue with the lack of helmets and safety wear depicted and the unsafe practices featured in the advertising.

Issue 2: Upheld

The television advertisement featured two men in a boat angling. They were dubbed with children’s voices whilst discussing Haribo sweets.

Issue1:

Three complaints were received against the advertisement. All three complained that the men in the advertisement were not wearing personal floatation devices (PFDs).

Issue 2:

The three complainants said they believed it was irresponsible to omit the wearing of PFDs in an advertisement they considered was primarily aimed at children.

Upheld

888 Ireland Limited

The advertisement was seen both on television and in the cinema. The commercial depicted young adults using the 888 application on their

smart phones.

Three complaints were received.

Issue 1:

The complainants saw the advertisement in the cinema before films which had a 12A and a 15A IFCO film classification, therefore they considered it could be seen to target children.

Issue 2:

The complainant considered that as the advertisement depicted young people appearing to play games on their smartphones as opposed to betting, this made it difficult to ascertain that the advertisement was promoting a gambling service.

Issue 3:

A complainant felt that the advertisement gave the impression of promoting gambling as safe and a fun way to relax.

Issues 1, 2 and 3:

Not Upheld

https://adstandards.ie/complaint/leisure-gambling-4/

The advertisement was seen in a national newspaper magazine and featured an image of a Land Rover Defender SUV driving out of the sea and onto rocks.

The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading as they said it depicted the vehicle as amphibious when it was not. The complainant also considered this dangerous as a driver attempting to replicate the image shown in the advertisement could drown.

A television advertisement featured a father and son passing a branch of Supermac’s. The father stopped and said to the son “guess

how much I love you?” and then indicates with a gesture of his head towards Supermac’s.

A voiceover then said, “Treat the ones you love this Christmas”.

Issue 1:

The complainants felt the advertisement implied one had to spend money to express

familial love.

Issue 2:

The complainants claimed it was irresponsibly promoting ‘fast food’ as a sign of affection.

.

Not Upheld

A billboard advertisement for Cadbury featured a 1980s photograph of a mother holding a baby on her lap, both the mother and baby are holding a Cadbury Easter egg together.

The complainant  objected to the billboard advertisement

on the grounds that it depicted a very young child with a full-size Buttons Easter Egg.