This article provides a selection of the most interesting ASA
adjudications from June and a summary of the key issues considered
in those adjudications.
This was a bumper month, in which the ASA considered several
complaints made about various comparative adverts, making it clear
that any qualifications to the nature of the comparison need to be
clearly stated. The ASA also adjudicated on complaints made
about the scheduling of advertisements, in some circumstances going
against previous Clearcast approvals. In addition, Groupon
came under fire again.
Click here to view the snapshot in full.
ADJUDICATIONS
COMPUTERS AND TELECOMS
1. Virgin Media Ltd, 29 June 2011 (Sky and BT complained about adverts relating to broadband speed and references to a "broadband" con being denigratory to other ISPs)
HOLIDAYS AND TRAVEL
2. bmibaby Ltd, 15 June 2011 (An example of fifteen bookings was held to be insufficient to substantiate the claim that savings could not be made on "all flights for 2011")
LEISURE
3. MyCityDeal Ltd t/a Groupon, 8 June 2011
(Groupon was unable to provide the ASA with evidence to
substantiate the "standard" price of the product that was
the subject of a price-reduction advert)
4. Lions Gate UK Ltd, 1 June 2011 (the ASA
decided that the overall impression made by the advert was too
violent to be shown post-9pm, due to the heightened impact caused
by the way in which scenes from the film were cut to form the
advert)
5. Lions Gate UK Ltd, 29 June 2011 (A
complaint that scenes shown in the advert for the film "Drive
Angry 3D" were too offensive to have been aired on TV was not
upheld on the basis that the advert was only being shown
post-11pm)
6. Paramount Pictures UK, 15 June 2011 (a
complaint that a TV advert for the film "No Strings
Attached", which included the text "CAN BEST FRIENDS...BE
SEX FRIENDS?", should not have been shown when children might
see it was not upheld by the ASA)
HEALTH AND BEAUTY
7. Home Shopping Selections Ltd, 8 June
2011 (Home Shopping's claim that its knee support
product provided "IMMEDIATE PAIN RELIEF" was held to be
misleading by the ASA as the product has not been registered as a
medical device and does not bear a CE mark)
8. Nutricia Ltd, 29 June 2011 (claims made
concerning the benefits, and iron content, of Cow & Gate
Growing Up Milk compared with breast and cow's milk were
considered)
HOUSEHOLD
9. Anglian Windows Ltd, 29 June 2011 (a complaint was made by Whitchurch Windows that consumers may be misled into believing that a sponsored web-link for Anglian Windows shown in the search results for "Whitchurch Windows" was actually for Whitchurch Windows)
RETAIL
10. Comet Group plc, 15 June 2011 (online price checks for comparative claims, together with the setting of RRPs for exclusive products are discussed)
FOOD AND DRINK
11. Unilever UK, 1 June 2011 (the
substantiation of claims made in relation to taste comparisons
between gravy products was considered)
12. Ferrero UK Ltd, 29 June 2011 (the overall
impression given by an advert for Nutella chocolate spread was
considered in deciding whether the advert misleadingly on the basis
that it did not make the fat and sugar content clear)
OTHER
13. Book A DSA Test, 15 June 2011 (the ASA
held that the overall impression made by the advert was that the
site was directly linked to the DSA, the web address and company
name enhanced this impression)
14. All Vehicle Contracts Ltd t/a AutoBuddy, 15 June
2011 (A technical fault with a comparison website which
had prevented the complainant from obtaining the quotes made in the
advert was not held to be misleading when the marketer took
immediate action to rectify this)
15. Text Marketer Ltd t/a Compare Bulk SMS Prices, 8
June 2011 (Consumers would expect comparisons of companies
selling bulk SMS packages to be independent and include all
companies selling bulk SMS packages unless otherwise stated)
16. Creative Media Ltd, 8 June 2011
(Competition winners should receive prizes no later than six weeks
after the closing date for entries to the competition, unless
specific provisions are made clear before entry)
17. Direct Line Group Ltd, 22 June 2011
(Direct Line provided sufficient information to customers
concerning the qualifications to the advertised offer for them to
be able to understand the full nature of the product that they
could purchase)
This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq
Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.
The original publication date for this article was 03/08/2011.