Advertising Standards Authority releases latest Complaints Bulletin
- 9 advertisements across Online, Social Media and Radio were found to be in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority Code on grounds related to Principles, Recognisability and Misleading Advertising
The Advertising Standards Authority’s independent Complaints Council has released its latest Complaints Bulletin which contains 9 case reports on complaints recently investigated by the organisation.
8 cases were upheld in full and one case was upheld in part. Advertisements across Online, Social Media and Radio were found to be in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority Code on grounds related to Principles, Recognisability and Misleading Advertising.
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, said: “Our core mission at the Advertising Standards Authority is to protect consumers from advertising that is misleading, harmful, or offensive. This bulletin is particularly noteworthy as all cases were found to be in breach of the Code on grounds related to Misleading Advertising. This highlights the importance of advertisers using only substantiated claims and influencers clearly disclosing commercial content.
These rulings underscore the importance of transparency, honesty, and responsibility in all forms of advertising. Beyond enforcing compliance, we are committed to promoting the principles of the Code across the industry, helping to build public trust in marketing communications.
Additionally, 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 9 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 |
|
eir |
Online Advertisement |
Misleading |
The advertisement was a sponsored post on Facebook featuring a picture of a Chromebook. The advertisement featured a number of statements including “Buy the Samsung Galaxy S24 on eir for just €99 and get a Chromebook Go worth €329 on us. #eirforall”.
The complainant believed the advertisement was misleading as one had to enter a contract with eir to avail of the offer which was not stated in the advertisement.
|
Upheld |
4.01, 4.04, 4.09 and 4.10 |
|
|
Image_a.d.s |
Online (Influencer’s Social Media) twins_and_me_ |
Principles / Recognisability / Misleading |
Two images were posted to the influencer’s Instagram story which showed dermaplaning products and the results of using them. Two issues were raised by the complainant.
Issue 1: The disclosure did not include a hashtag before AD and was therefore marked incorrectly. The complainant also said the disclosure was barely visible as it was small white text on a white background.
Issue 2: There was a filter used on the second image demonstrating the results of the products which the complainant deemed misleading.
|
Issues 1 and 2 Upheld |
3.10, 3.31, 3.32, 4.01, 4.04, 4.09 and 4.10 |
|
|
Luxury Exchange |
Online (Company’s Own Website) |
Misleading |
An advertisement on the advertiser’s own website featured information on ‘Shipping, Orders and Returns’ and stated “We provide free shipping throughout Ireland on all orders. International shipping is €20”.
The complainant stated that the advertisement was misleading as there was a delivery fee on Irish orders.
Although the advertiser informed the complainant that the website would be updated to reflect this, the change had not been implemented at the time of the complaint.
|
Upheld | 4.01 | |
|
Haven Pain Relief Centre |
Online (Company Own Website) |
Misleading |
The homepage of the website featured a number of statements including “Haven Integrative Pain Relief Centre in Douglas, Cork, is Ireland’s leading Multidisciplinary Pain Relief and Wellness Care Centre” and “Pain Management Consultants, Pain Specialist Doctor Cork”.
The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as the service was advertised as pain management and the advertising included various references to “doctor” together with a “pain management consultants” and “pain specialist doctor”.
The complainant also stated that, based on the information provided, they considered it reasonable for a member of the public to believe that the services were being provided by a medical doctor. However, none of the credentials listed for the medical professional featured in the advertisement appeared to be those that qualify a person to practice medicine in Ireland.
|
Upheld | 4.01 and 4.04 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/health-beauty-85/ |
|
twins_and_me_ |
Online (Influencer’s Social Media) twins_and_me_ |
Recognisability / Misleading |
An Instagram story featured an influencer and her daughter attaching charms to Croc shoes. The story also included a link directing viewers to the website to purchase the charms.
The complainant stated that the link on the story was an affiliate link. They also observed that the influencer had included ‘AF’ in small writing which was obscured by the influencer’s profile picture.
|
Upheld | 3.31, 3.32, 4.01 and 4.04 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/jewellery-8/ |
|
Dublin Airport Authority (daa) |
Press and Radio |
Misleading |
The advertisement was featured in a national newspaper and on radio. The newspaper advertisement listed Cork and Dublin airport at the top and featured an animated image of the sky which included the text “ 128,000 jobs lift us all”. It also claimed the airports contribute “€10.6 billion to the Irish economy” and “support over 128,000 jobs”. The radio advertisement featured the statement “And, by halving airport emissions by 2030, we think we can lift everyone’s future hopes even higher!”
Six complaints were received in relation to the advertisement and two issues were identified:
Issue 1: One complainant argued the press ad was misleading on the basis that it claimed the daa contributed €10.6 billion to the Irish economy but didn’t take into account that Irish people travelling abroad took €12.9 billion out of the economy.
Issue 2: Five complainants felt the radio ad was misleading by implying that all airport related emissions (including flights) would be halved by 2030, whereas the actual claim only referred to direct airport emissions.
|
Issue 1: Not Upheld Issue 2: Upheld |
4.01 and 4.04 |
https://adstandards.ie/complaint/travel-10/ |
|
Dylan Oaks |
Online (Influencer’s Own Social Media) twins_and_me_ |
Principles / Recognisability / Misleading |
Various images and a video were posted to the influencer’s Instagram story promoting the advertiser’s jewellery collection. Onscreen text across the images and video stated “@dylanoaksofficial ad”.
The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading as they said the disclosures did not feature a hashtag before AD and were therefore marked incorrectly.
They also said the disclosure text was hard to read and, in one case, was written in white text on a white background.
|
Upheld |
3.10, 3.31, 3.32, 4.01 and 4.04 |
|
|
Voduz Hair |
Online (Influencer’s Own Social Media) twins_and_me_ |
Recognisability / Misleading |
Five posts appeared on the influencer’s Instagram story featuring a variety of the advertiser’s products.
Three complaints were received against the advertisement as the posts were not clearly labelled as commercial content.
|
Upheld | 3.31, 4.01 and 4.04 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/health-beauty-86/
|
|
Ella and Jo Cosmetics |
Online (Influencer’s Own Social Media) twins_and_me_ |
Recognisability / Misleading |
Four posts appeared on the influencers Instagram story featuring a variety of the advertiser’s products. All posts included a link to buy the products.
The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as it was labelled incorrectly and it was not clear to viewers that it was commercial content.
|
Upheld | 3.31, 3.32, 4.01 and 4.04 | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/health-beauty-87/
|
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
