Advertising Standards Authority releases latest Complaints Bulletin

Bio Cleaning Solutions

Brochure

Misleading / Household

The advertisement appeared as a brochure and featured a number of statements including “Last year, over 52% of all households failed their septic tank inspections. This means that one in every two households will face heavy fines, prosecutions and expensive repair work”, “because new water laws mean the county council is inspecting all septic tanks right now”, “keeping your septic tank working perfectly doesn’t take a lot of money, or effort. All you need to do is flush one sachet of Muck Munchers down the toilet every month” and “The little Muck Munchers literally eat through the waste in your septic tank, reducing it to

harmless water and organic waste.”

Two complaints were received against the advertising.

Issue 1:

Both complainants considered that the advertisement grossly exaggerated the risk and consequences of prosecution with the aim of frightening consumers into purchasing the product on offer.

Issue 2:

One complainant also considered the advertisement inaccurate and misleading. They pointed out that there were approximately 500 failures out of 500,000 septic tanks leading to a fail rate of only 0.1% not 52%. While they acknowledged that 52%

of the tanks inspected failed, they pointed out this was not what was claimed in the advertisement.

The complaint also said  just over 1,000 inspections were carried out last year and that out of 500,000 septic tanks, this led to a figure of less than 0.2% which was very far from “all septic tanks” as claimed in the advert.

The complainant objected to the claim that Muck Mulchers would keep septic tanks “working perfectly” as no matter what chemical action was elicited from the product, this would not be enough to make good any physical shortcomings or defects in a tank.

The complainant considered that the wording

“harmless water and organic waste” was misleading as while the quality of waste could be improved, there would always be a residue and little or no reduction in the concentration of phosphates or other similar pollutants.

Upheld

The advertisement was seen as a sponsored post on Instagram and featured an image of a young, excited woman holding two sachets of the product on offer.

The caption of the post featured a number of statements including “1 Sachet, Once a Day – Everything you need.”

The complainant said that as the advertisement featured an image of a woman of childbearing age, this in addition to the claim “everything you need” implied that the product had everything a woman would require. However, the complainant said the sachets did not contain enough folic acid for the age group as it only had 300 micrograms whereas women of the age depicted in the advertisement needed 400 micrograms.

The complainant said that a separate supplement would be needed to meet the requisite amount of folic acid for the woman of the age depicted in the advertisement and that this was not made clear in the advertisement, therefore making it misleading.

The advertisement was seen as a post on the advertisers’ Facebook page and promoted a stock clearance sale. The advertisement made a number of statements including “We are having a MEGA STOCK CLEARANCE SALE this weekend”, “Up to 50% OFF across the store”, “Beds, Bedroom Furniture, Sofas & Dining all reduced” and “INSTORE ONLY”.

The complainant contacted the Navan store to check the level of stock on a bedside table, however, they were informed that in stock items were not included in the sale and that it was only certain floor models / former display items. They therefore considered the advertisement to be misleading as it did not stipulate which items exactly were included in the sale.

The complainant also said the advertisement did not give a link to any specific Terms and Conditions.

Two posts appeared on the Influencer’s Instagram stories promoting products from her own brand POCO.

The complainant considered the posts to be in breach of the Code as they had not been identified correctly as advertising material given the absence of a primary identification label such as #AD.

The advertisement was featured on an audio streaming service. It featured two voices, the second of which was comparative to a demonic voice.

Part of the script stated:

Voice 1: New mini technology puts the power of Fireball in the palm of your hand. Now

small enough to fit in your pocket. Pop in your bag.

Voice 2: Shove it up your…

Voice 1: Sleeve! He was gonna say sleeve.

Issue 1:

The complaint objected to the advertisement on the grounds it was offensive and encouraged poor decisions around alcoholic use.

Issue 2

The complaint said the advertisement was served to them at 6:05am which was inappropriate as their 8 year old son could have heard it and would have been frightened by the tone of the demonic voice.

Upheld

The advertisement was on a page of the advertiser’s website which outlined the benefits of their ‘Lightning 500 Saver’ plan. Under the listed benefits was a price of €49.95. This price had an ‘x’ struck through it and beside it a price of €34.95 was displayed.

Beneath this was a dropdown message. When the dropdown message was clicked it stated “Special Offer! Available to new customers only at €34.95 per month for 6 months (€49.95 per month for balance of 12-month contract). €54.95 per month thereafter. One time €24.95 activation fee applies.”

The complainant believed that the advertisement gave the impression that the price was €34.95 for the entire 12 month period. They did not consider that the price increase to €49.95 after six months was sufficiently visible and as such, a consumer could be misled.

The advertisement was seen as a post on the advertisers’ Instagram account and featured a red sketch of a clock. In the top right corner was an image of a house alarm with the advertisers’ brand name written on it. Text included on the image stated “Ireland’s fastest alarm response rate: with 15 seconds.”

The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading to consumers as it was not simply possible for the claim to be substantiated. The complainant said it was not possible for the advertisers to have knowledge of how quickly every other alarm monitoring company responded to alarm activations.

A poster advertisement and radio advertisement featured a number of statements including “You can always rely on Vodafone, Ireland’s best mobile network for 9 years in a row”, “Best in Test” and “Certified by Umlaut.”

Issue 1:

The complainant considered the advertising misleading as the report referred to in the advertising was a commissioned report by the advertisers which had not been stated in the advertising. They said that they assumed the locations and dates of testing had been agreed in advance between Vodafone and Umlaut, and that other operators had not been contacted to explain when or where testing was to be carried out.

Issue 2:

The complainant considered that the advertising had misrepresented the results and the independence of the tests, inaccurately representing Vodafone as showing a higher performance in mobile broadband and fixed broadband than other providers.

Very

Online (Advertisers’ Own Website)

Misleading

The advertisement was online information regarding the advertisers’ ‘Buy Now Pay Later’ scheme.

The scheme was described as being “available to customers who have held a Very credit account for 6 months subject to the account status.”

The website outlined the scheme in its Terms and Conditions. Towards the bottom of the page it said “Credit provided subject to eligibility and lending criteria.”

The complainant considered the advertising material was misleading as when they attempted to avail of the ‘Buy Now Pay Later’ option using their account they were refused use.

The complainant alleged that they were told they could not avail of the facility as the advertisers decide who can avail of the scheme and that it was a promotional offer.

They considered the advertising had been

misleading as they said that no reference had been made on the webpage that eligibility for the scheme was at the advertisers’ discretion and that it was a promotion.

Not Upheld

N/A

https://adstandards.ie/complaint/retail-11/