Advertising Standards Authority releases latest Complaints Bulletin
- Seven advertisements across Radio, Social Media, Television and Online were found to be in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority Code on grounds related to Misleading, Environmental, Principles, Safety and Recognisability
- Two intra-industry (competitive) complaints were upheld
- The Complaints Council chose not to uphold one complaint
The Advertising Standards Authority’s independent Complaints Council has released its latest Complaints Bulletin which contains 10 case reports on complaints recently investigated by the organisation.
Nine cases were upheld in full. Advertisements across Radio, Social Media, Television and Online were found to be in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority Code on grounds related to Misleading, Environmental, Principles, Safety and Responsibility. The Complaints Council chose to not 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, said: “The Advertising Standards Authority is committed to protecting consumers from advertising that is harmful, misleading, or offensive. Our latest complaints bulletin showcases the broad scope of our work in maintaining honesty, transparency, and integrity across Irish advertising.
In addition to ensuring adherence to the Code, we actively promote its values throughout the industry. Our approach goes beyond addressing non-compliant advertising, we also focus on educating both consumers and advertisers. Through these efforts, we strive to build and sustain public trust in advertising.
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 seven advertisements that were found to be in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority Code:
| Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
| Shamrock Renewable Products (Willow Warm) | Radio | Misleading / Environmental |
The campaign featured two radio advertisement’s as well as information on the advertiser’s own website regarding their products carbon neutral status. Three complaints were received against the advertisement. Issue 1: Two complainants objected to the claim in the radio advertisement that the product was “good for the environment” as they said the burning of any solid fuel could not be deemed as environmentally beneficial. Issue 2: One complainant stated that the website’s claim that the product was “carbon neutral” was misleading. While the site said the product’s CO2 emissions were offset by CO2 captured during growth, the complainant pointed out that this CO2 is simply released again when the product is burned. They felt this did not count as permanent sequestration or offsetting. Although the product might be somewhat sustainable, the complainant questioned whether it could truly be called carbon neutral unless the company was also capturing and not burning an equivalent amount of CO2. |
Issues 1 and 2:
Upheld |
4.01, 4.04, 4.09, 4.10, 15.02 |
|
|
BPerfect Cosmetic |
Online (Influencer’s Social Media) @twins_and_me_
|
Principles / Misleading / Recognisability
|
A number of stories were posted to the influencer’s Instagram account featuring BPerfect cosmetics. Eight complaints were received regarding various content shared by the influencer. Issue 1: The complainants considered that the stories had not been disclosed correctly as commercial content and, in some cases, the size, location, and colour of the font used meant that either the disclosure was partially or fully obscured, meaning it was not instantly clear to viewers it was an advertisement.
Issue 2: The complainants claimed the influencer was using a filter while applying the advertiser’s products and, as a filter would affect how the product appears on skin, they felt this was misleading. |
Issues 1 and 2: Upheld |
3.10, 3.31, 3.32, 4.01 4.04, 4.09 and 4.10 |
|
|
BPerfect Cosmetics |
Online (Influencer’s Social Media) @sarahburke_x |
Recognisability |
An Instagram story featuring BPerfect Cosmetics tanning products was posted to the influencer’s account. The story featured the influencer speaking to camera or screenshot images of the products from the advertiser’s website.
Two complaints were received regarding the advertisement.
The complainants stated the content had not been correctly disclosed as a marketing communication.
|
Upheld | 3.31 and 3.32 |
https://adstandards.ie/complaint/health-beauty-89/
|
|
Estrid Studios AB |
Online (Influencer’s Social Media) @twins_and_me_ |
Principles / Responsibility / Misleading |
The advertisement was Instagram stories from the influencer promoting Estrid products.
“@heyestrid ad” appeared in the top righthand corner of the stories. In each case, the text was in a text box with a background colour along with a link to the advertiser’s website and a discount code,
The complainant provided screenshots from each of the stories. They considered that the advertising was misleading as it was not immediately obvious that it was a marketing communication, taking into account of the size and position of the disclosures and given that the disclosures also were incorrect. |
Upheld | 3.10, 3.31, 3.32, 4.01 and 4.04 |
|
|
Ryanair |
Online (Company Own Website) |
Misleading |
The advertisement was a banner on Ryanair’s website for the ‘Big Summer Sale.’ The advertisement included the statement “Prices Will Rise.”
The complainant said that they considered the statement “Prices Will Rise” as misleading. They claimed that some prices dropped after they had availed of the summer sale prices and the flight they purchased had a lower price the following month. |
Upheld | 4.01, 4.04 and 4.09 |
|
|
Irish Supply |
Online (Advertiser’s Own Website) |
Misleading |
The advertisement promoted COLORO, an educational magnetic maze toy for children.
The complainant believed the advertisement was misleading as the received product significantly differed in quality and design from what was advertised. The website was later updated to better match the actual product sent to customers. |
Upheld | 4.01 and 4.04 |
|
|
Dacia |
Television |
Principles / Safety |
A television advertisement for the Dacia Sandero showcased the car being used in everyday scenarios such as loading birthday presents and transporting dogs. These scenes were interspersed with scenes of the car driving on roads and going around corners; a scene in which one car passed another at an intersection; and a scene in which a car appeared to have been spinning.
The complainant raised concerns that the ad portrayed careless or unsafe driving, such as taking corners at speed and drivers appearing distracted (e.g. singing loudly). Although acknowledging the ad was likely filmed in a controlled setting, the complainant felt it was irresponsible to depict such behaviour – especially given recent road fatalities – arguing it sent the wrong message about road safety.
|
Upheld | 3.3 and 3.24(a) |
|
The Complaints Council chose to uphold two complaints made by an intra-industry (competitive) complainant in the following cases:
| Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
|
Lidl |
Online (Social Media) and Press |
Misleading |
Social Media Advertisement: A reel and post on the advertiser’s Instagram account included the statement “Lidl is Ireland’s best value supermarket”.
Press Advertisement: A press advertisement featured a trolley price comparison between Lidl and three competitors. The advertisement was headlined “The results are in. Lidl is Ireland’s best value supermarket” and included the statements “Lidl’s Price Is Always Right” and “Ireland’s Best Value Supermarket”.
A footnote at the bottom of the press advertisement stated: “Comparison shop completed on the 06/01/2025. Pro rata price comparison based on supermarket own label where appropriate. Loyalty apps and schemes included.”
The complainant objected to the advertising on the grounds that the claim “Ireland’s Best Value Supermarket” implied the advertiser had been awarded through a competition or an independent award. They also said that nowhere in the advertisements had the claim been verified or substantiated. |
Upheld |
4.01, 4.04, 4.09 and 4.10 |
|
|
Zeon Healthcare – Macu Save |
Online (Social Media) |
Misleading / Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages |
An Instagram post featured an image of the product and a number of statements including “The formulation supported by research”, “the most clinically researched lutein brand worldwide” and “Trusted Formulation for Vision Support” alongside the hashtags “VisionCare” and “amd”.
Issue 1 The complainant argued that the terms “Clinically Researched” and “#amd” implied that the product had medicinal properties, suggesting it could treat, prevent, or cure disease.
They believed this misled consumers into thinking the product met the standards of a licensed medicine which is not allowed for food supplements under EU and Irish law. Specifically, they said that using “#amd” referenced Age-Related Macular Degeneration, implying the supplement could treat the condition – a claim requiring medical authorisation which the product did not have.
Issue 2 The complainant argued that the ad made unauthorised health claims for a food supplement, such as “Trusted Formulation for Vision Support!” and “#visioncare”. They stated that under EU regulations, only approved nutrition claims can be used, and there are currently no authorised health claims for “vision support” related to the product or its ingredients.
Issue 3 The complainant challenged the claim “The most clinically researched lutein brand worldwide”, saying it was an absolute and unverified claim suggesting global superiority. They argued that without public, verifiable data comparing all lutein brands worldwide, the claim could not be substantiated. |
Issues 1, 2 and 3:
Upheld |
4.01, 4.04, 4.09, 4.10, 4.33 8.09 and 8.11, |
|
The following advertisement was investigated by the Complaints Council and was found to not be in breach of the Code:
| Advertiser | Medium | Complaint Category | Description | Complaint Status | Section Breached | Link |
|
Energia |
Online (Company Own Website) |
Misleading / Environment |
A webpage titled “100% Renewable Energy” explained that while customers can’t be guaranteed to use renewable electricity at any given moment (due to the shared national grid), the company buys Guarantees of Origin (GOs) to certify that the energy is from renewable sources. It also stated that “all your electricity plan goes towards funding sustainable projects and green generation across the grid.”
Issue 1 The complainant believed the phrase “all your electricity plan” implied that 100% of customer payments directly fund sustainable energy. They argued this was misleading because some electricity was still sourced from fossil fuels, and GOs were used retrospectively to “green” the supply. Therefore, it could not be claimed that all of the plan funded renewables.
Issue 2: The complainant also challenged the phrase “across the grid,” interpreting it to mean the Irish national grid. As GOs can be sourced from elsewhere in the EU, they claimed the statement was misleading unless it was made clear that some projects may be outside Ireland. The complaint referenced the 2023 CRU Fuel Mix Disclosure, which showed a significant share of the supplier’s electricity came from fossil fuels – suggesting that the company did not purchase enough GOs to fully offset this, further undermining the 100% renewable claim. |
Not Upheld | N/A | https://adstandards.ie/complaint/40512/ |
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
