Advertising Standards Authority releases latest Complaints Bulletin
- 14 advertisements across Online, Social Media, In-Store Advertisement, Email and Television were found to be in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority Code on grounds related to a range of issues including Misleading, Recognisability and Price
- Two Intra-industry / Interested Party complaints were upheld
The Advertising Standards Authority’s independent Complaints Council has released its latest Complaints Bulletin which contains 17 case reports on complaints recently investigated by the organisation.
16 of the 17 cases were upheld in full, two of which were Intra-Industry / Interested Party complaints. Advertisements across Online, Social Media, In-Store Advertisement, Email and Television were found to be in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority Code on grounds related to Misleading, Recognisability and Price. The Advertising Standards Authority chose not to uphold one complaint.
The Complaints Council 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 Council 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 core mission of the Advertising Standards Authority is to safeguard consumers from harmful, misleading, or offensive advertising. Our latest complaints bulletin highlights the organisation’s vital role in upholding honesty, decency, and truthfulness in Irish advertising while ensuring compliance with the Code of Standards.
We are dedicated to promoting accountability and adherence with the Code across the Irish advertising industry. This commitment extends beyond removing non-compliant advertisements to proactively educating brands and consumers on advertising standards. Through these efforts, we strive to foster trust in advertising for all.
To assist advertisers, we offer a free and confidential copy advice service, guiding them in creating responsible and compliant advertisements. This service provides invaluable guidance for advertisers, agencies and media that carry advertisements who may have questions or concerns about the compliance of marketing communications. We encourage anyone in the industry to take advantage of this resource to ensure their advertising is both responsible and effective.”
Below is a list of 14 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 |
| Life Lessons Podcast |
Online
|
Misleading / Recognisability |
Advertising material published on the influencer’s Instagram account for their own podcast entitled ‘Life Lessons with …’ contained snippets of information on the content of the podcasts alongside various ways to subscribe.
The complainant said the marketing communications had not been identified as advertising material, and there had been no indication on the part of the influencer that the podcasts related to their ‘own brand’. |
Upheld | 3.31, 3.32, 4.1 and 4.4 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/publishing-3/ |
| Wild
|
Online (Influencer’s Social Media Account)
|
Misleading / Recognisability
|
The influencer was featured on their Instagram stories holding various re-fill products from the Wild ranges.
The complainants said the ad had not been identified correctly. They said the #Ad had not been placed as required before the block text.
|
Upheld
|
3.31, 3.32, 4.1, and 4.4 |
https://adstandards.ie/complaint/health-and-beauty-15/
|
| The Hut Group |
Online (Influencer’s Social Media Account) |
Misleading / Recognisability |
Various advertising material published on the influencer’s Instagram account featured the influencer wearing sports clothing from the MyProtein range.
The complainant said that the ad had not been identified correctly. The advertisement identification label had been placed at the bottom of the screen and the hashtag (#) identification had been excluded.
|
Upheld | 3.31 and 3.32 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/clothing-14/ |
| BPerfect Cosmetics | Online (Social Media) | Misleading / Recognisability |
Three stories were posted on the influencer’s social media account that featured the advertisers’ products. All three stories featured two images each, one which depicted the influencer using the advertisers’ products and a second which presented the results achieved using the products.
Three complaints were received:
Issue 1: The complainant considered the ad to be misleading as the influencer was using a filter while applying the advertisers’ product on herself.
Issue 2: The complainant said that the ad had not been identified correctly as the disclosure wording was barely visible.
|
Upheld | 3.31, 3.32, 4.1, and 4.4 | |
| Emma Mattress |
Online (Influencer’s Social Media Account) |
Misleading / Recognisability |
An Instagram story on the influencer’s account included a screenshot from a post they had published.
The complainant did not consider that the marketing communication had been identified correctly as the identifying label AD had been placed at the bottom of the image.
|
Upheld | 3.31 and 3.32 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/household-42/ |
| Califia Farms | Online (Influencer’s Social Media Account) | Misleading / Recognisability |
The influencer featured on her Instagram stories holding a drinking cup with a straw. Three bottles from the Califia Farms range of cold brews featured in the background.
The complainant said that the ad had not been identified correctly.
|
Upheld | 3.31 and 3.32 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/food-beverages-23/ |
| Dylan Oaks |
Online (Influencer’s Social Media Account)
|
Misleading / Recognisability
|
The post published on the Influencer’s Instagram account featured her showcasing her hairstyle and outfit.
The complainant considered it was not clear that it was an ad as the word ‘AD’ was hidden and it was only by clicking on the word ‘more’ that it became visible.
|
Upheld
|
3.10, 3.31 and 3.32 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/jewellery-7/
|
| BPerfect Cosmetics | Online (Influencer’s Social Media Account) | Misleading / Recognisability |
The post published on the Influencer’s Instagram account featured her showcasing her hairstyle and outfit.
The complainant considered the post was not clear that it was an ad as the word ‘AD’ was hidden and it was only by clicking on the word ‘more’ that it became visible.
|
Upheld |
3.10, 3.31 and 3.32
|
https://adstandards.ie/complaint/health-beauty-78/ |
| Dunbeacon Camping and Glamping | Company’s Own Website | Misleading / VAT |
A webpage on the advertisers’ website set out the prices for various accommodation types. When the link to book was accessed, the full price was stated inclusive of VAT.
A search gave details for two accommodation options “Prices start at: €170 for 2 nights (+€22.95 taxes and fees)” and “Prices start at €260 for 2 nights (+35.10 taxes and fees)”.
The complainant queried whether the prices displayed should be inclusive of VAT.
|
Upheld |
4.23 |
|
| Salon 14 | Online (Third Party Website) | Misleading / Price |
The advertisement appeared on a third-party booking platform. One of the services advertised was a “Ladies – 12 Week Blow Dry” for long hair which was offered at a price of €109 reduced from €199.
The complainant said that when they went to the salon, they were charged €139 rather than the advertised €109.
|
Upheld | 3.10, 4.01, 4.04, 4.09, 4.10 and 4.22 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/health-beauty-79/ |
|
Movehome.ie
|
Online (Company’s Own Website) | Misleading |
The advertisement was a listing for a property described as a “Pristine 4 bedroom property.”
The property was described as two double bedrooms on the first floor and also “a single bedroom that is currently used as a walk in wardrobe.” This bedroom was described as having a floor area of “2.66m x 2m”. The fourth bedroom was “an attic conversion located on the second floor and is a spacious double bedroom with ample storage and skylights.”
The complainant felt the advertisement was misleading as they claimed the smallest bedroom had inadequate floor area. They also claimed that the attic conversion was in breach of regulations which concerned height to floor ratios for bedrooms.
|
Upheld | 3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, and 4.10 |
https://adstandards.ie/complaint/property-18/
|
|
Brennan’s Brewing & Distilling Co. |
Online (Company Own Website) |
Misleading |
The advertisement was text on the advertisers’ website and stated “…produced in this modest family brewery in Courtown county Wexford, in the southeast of Ireland.”
The complainant considered the advertising could mislead consumers into thinking the craft beer was produced locally, when they understood that there was no brewery in operation in Courtown.
|
Upheld |
4.1, 4.4, 4.9, and 4.10 |
|
| Dunnes Stores
|
In-Store Advertisement
|
Misleading
|
The advertisement was an in-store sign advertising an offer entitled ‘Big Night In.’ One of the pictured sides was a garlic bread.
The complainant considered that the advertisement was misleading as they did not carry garlic bread in the Killarney branch of Dunnes Stores.
|
Upheld |
3.10, 4.1, 4.9, and 4.10
|
https://adstandards.ie/complaint/food-beverages-22/
|
| Millies.ie | Direct Mail (Email) | Misleading |
The subject matter of the email read: “Hurry Last chance to Save Sitewide”.
The email offered a discount code and featured images of three different beauty products. The text said: “… 20% off SITEWIDE CODE… T&Cs apply. Some exclusions apply”.
The complainant said it was misleading to state that there was 20% off products sitewide when exclusions applied, and it was also misleading to feature products that were not included in the offer.
|
Upheld | 4.1, 4.4 and 4.6 |
The Advertising Standards Authority received two complaints from Intra-industry or Interested Parties, both were upheld:
| Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
| Three Ireland (Hutchison) Limited | Television | Misleading |
The television advertisement depicted a sign placed in a construction site stating, “Fibre Installation”. A construction worker was depicted with a Kango Hammer. The Kango Hammer took off, with the construction worker on it, and began to travel to various locations in Ireland, digging into the ground the whole time.
A couple are shown, with the female actor asking: “Why are they still laying fibre when we’ve got this?”
The camera then panned to a 5G broadband server set up within the home as a voiceover stated: “Three 5G Home Broadband – another way to broadband, just plug and play.”
Issue 1: The complainant considered that the advertisement was an attempt by the advertiser to make a direct comparison between fibre broadband and 5G broadband.
Issue 2: The complainant pointed to the implication within the advertisement that the installation of fibre required destructive and disruptive civil works being carried out and said that this was both disingenuous and patently not the case.
|
Issues 1 and 2:
Upheld |
4.01, 4.04, 4.09, 4.10 and 4.32 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/telecommunications-96/ |
| Cambridge Motor Company | Online (Advertisers’ Own Website) | Misleading |
The home page of Cambridge Motor Company website displayed The Society of the Irish Motor Industry’s (SIMI) logo in the corner of the screen stating that they were members of the organisation.
The complainant considered it to be misleading on the grounds that Cambridge Motor Company were not members of the SIMI.
|
Upheld | 4.01, 4.04, 4.09, 4.10 and 4.35 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/motoring-59/ |
One complaint was not upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority
| Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
| Jaguar Land Rover Ireland | Outdoor Poster | Principles |
The advertisement was seen as an outdoor poster and featured an image of a Land Rover Defender SUV driving out of the sea and onto rocks.
The complainant considered that the advertisement showed a negative disregard to the environment, regardless of purpose.
|
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 Council’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
