This article provides a selection of the most interesting ASA adjudications from October and a summary of the key issues considered in the adjudications.
This month, although the ASA considered a number of themes, the
suitable targeting of adverts and the application of appropriate
timing restrictions featured in many of the adjudications. This has
been considered several times in recent months. This month, in
considering its conclusions in respect of various adverts, the ASA
took into account the use of ex-kids restrictions to minimise the
chances of young children viewing the adverts.
To view the article in full, please see below:
Full Article
HEALTH AND BEAUTY
1. Beiersdorf UK Ltd, 6 October 2010 (an advert for a sun lotion that portrayed tanning as desirable did not condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health)
FOOD AND DRINK
2. Antonio Federici, 27 October 2010 (an advert
for ice cream was considered to be offensive on religious
grounds)
3. Kerry Foods Ltd, 20 October 2010 (the ASA did
not consider that a "meatiest" claim in an advert
parodying another retailer's advertising style referred to the
product containing more meat than competitors' products)
4. Premier Foods Group Ltd, 20 October 2010 (the
ASA considered the risk of emulation and targeting of adverts)
RETAIL
5. LA Muscle TV Limited, 13 October 2010
(following a challenge by the CAP Monitoring team, the ASA
concluded that a product's name can itself constitute a claim
which must be substantiated)
6. Sit-Up Ltd, 20 October 2010 (an advert which
mistakenly implied that customers would make an increased saving
than they actually would was considered misleading)
7. Waitrose Ltd, 20 October 2010 (any terms used
must be understandable to consumers; it is not sufficient that
terms used in adverts are generally accepted in the relevant
industry)
8. Tesco Stores Ltd, 13 October 2010 (three
complaints by a rival supermarket relating to the substantiation of
claims regarding Tesco butchers and meat were not upheld)
LEISURE
9. Nintendo of Europe GmbH, 20 October 2010
(complaints that children in an advert should have been using a car
booster seat were not upheld)
10. Virgin Media Ltd, 27 October 2010 (the ASA
acknowledged the subjective nature of a "best"
claim)
11. Sony Europe Ltd, 6 October 2010 (the ASA
considered the risk of emulation in an advert that it considered
might be distasteful to some, but did not uphold complaints)
12. MTV Networks Europe t/a Viva, 20 October 2010
(the ASA considered timing restrictions placed on two adverts when
concluding that the adverts were unlikely to cause serious or
widespread offence)
OTHER
13. The Automobile Association Ltd, 13 October
2010 (the ASA considered that information in the small
print contradicted, rather than qualified the headline claim in the
advert)
14. Ryanair Ltd, 13 October 2010 (the advertiser
did not provide evidence to substantiate a claim for the whole
period to which it related, and did not make clear on which the
headline claim was based)
NON-COMMERCIAL
15. Oxfam t/a Oxfam GB, 27 October 2010 (the ASA did not uphold complaints against a climate change advert, as it considered that the claim was substantiated and restrained)
MISCELLANEOUS
Department of Energy and Climate Change – Ofcom Decision (Following its investigation, Ofcom that the DECC's Act on CO2 "Bedtime Stories" campaign was not political advertising)
Prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (A wheel-clamper has been successfully prosecuted under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and was ordered to reimburse his victims the money they had paid to secure the release of their cars)
HEALTH AND BEAUTY
1. Beiersdorf UK Ltd, 6 October 2010
A TV advert for a sun lotion featured a voice-over stating "New Nivea Protect and Bronze is our first sun lotion which helps protect your skin whilst its active ingredient supports your natural tanning ability without any self tan." The voice-over also claimed "after all, 57% of us admit to being envious of friends who tan easily..." On-screen text read "57% of 11,505 respondents...".
Complaint/Decision
A doctor complained that the advert was harmful and prejudicial
to health because it suggested that the ability to tan easily was
desirable and to be envied. The complainant argued that tanning was
a sign of skin damage and, in light of the dangers of skin cancer,
should be discouraged.
The ASA took the view that the statistic in the advert reflected
the fact that many consumers liked to tan. It considered that the
advert accepted that tanning was popular by encouraging consumers
to use a product that provided sun protection whilst assisting with
tanning. It acknowledged that the women featured in the advert were
not excessively tanned and concluded that the advert was unlikely
to be seen to encourage or condone behaviour prejudicial to
health.
This adjudication is interesting because although tanning is
potentially prejudicial to health, the advert encouraged the use of
sun protection at the same time as tanning, and was therefore
considered acceptable. The ASA did not comment on the statistic
quoted in the advert by the advertiser because the complaint did
not relate to substantiation, however a positive response of 57% in
a consumer survey is arguably not a particularly emphatic
percentage.
FOOD AND DRINK
2. Antonio Federici, 27 October 2010
A magazine advert for ice cream showed two robed priests who looked like they were about to kiss. The advert included text reading "We Believe in Salivation".
Complaint/Decision
The ASA received six complaints that the advert was offensive on
the grounds that it mocked Catholicism.
The ASA considered that the portrayal of the two priests in a
sexualised manner was likely to be interpreted as mocking Catholic
beliefs and was therefore likely to cause serious offence to some.
Accordingly, the ASA concluded that the advert breached the CAP
Code.
In its response to the ASA, the advertiser had stated that, rather
than mocking the beliefs of the Catholic Church, the advert was
designed to reflect the troubles that it believed affected the
Church. However, the adjudication serves as a reminder of the
sensitivities of the portrayal of religion in adverts. Adverts
featuring or seeking to parody religion regularly attract
complaints on the grounds of offensiveness and this is an area
where complaints are often upheld. This is the third advert for
Antonio Federici ice cream, seeking to play on a religious theme,
where complaints have been upheld, including as recently as
September.
3. Kerry Foods Ltd, 20 October 2010
A radio advert for sausage rolls stated "This isn't just any sausage roll. This is a Wall's sausage roll. This is the most light, flaky, mouth-watering, golden brown pastry known to man. Flaky pastry layers wrapped around the tastiest meatiest, most meaty, succulent pork meat imaginable. This is a sausage roll guaranteed to fill you up and fire you forward. This isn't just a sausage roll. This is proper food. Wall's proper food."
Complaint/Decision
One listener understood that other sausage rolls contained a
higher percentage of pork and therefore complained that the claim
"meatiest" was misleading.
The ASA acknowledged that the advert parodied the advertising style
of a well-known food retailer, with its use of evocative words.
Accordingly, the ASA considered that most listeners would interpret
the style of the advert to be a comic device and would not
interpret the word "meatiest" as a claim
comparing the advertiser's product to those of its competitors.
The ASA concluded that the advert promoted the product as
"tasty and desirable" and was not
misleading.
This advert shows that, provided claims are made in an appropriate
style, claims which might otherwise be considered as superiority
claims can be accepted as advertising puff. The use of humour and
"clearly exaggerated" language meant that the
advert was not considered to be misleading.
4. Premier Foods Group Ltd, 20 October 2010
This adjudication concerned two TV bread adverts. The first was set in the 1970s and featured the same teenage girl in various short scenes, for example showing her hitting a schoolboy over the head with a notebook when he called her names, making a prank phone call, throwing flour in cookery class and pushing a teacher into a swimming pool. One of the scenes showed the girl holding a piece of bread above a dog as it jumped to reach it. Bread was then put into a toaster and the voice over stated "there comes a time when it's good to be good" and a woman was shown taking the toast out of the toaster. The second TV advert was the same, but featured additional scenes such as the girl being pushed down the street in a shopping trolley, and her pushing a friend in a ballet class.
Complaint/Decision
The ASA received four complaints that the adverts were
irresponsible and condoned anti-social behaviour and bullying. One
of the complainants also challenged whether the scene featuring the
dog was cruel and could encourage emulation.
The ASA noted that the adverts were designed to contrast the
girl's mischievous behaviour in the past with the sensible
choice she made as an adult to eat the advertiser's product. It
acknowledged that in several of the short scenes the girl was
reprimanded. The ASA specifically considered the timing
restrictions placed on the adverts; the first advert would not be
seen by very young children and the second would only be shown
after 9 pm. Accordingly the ASA concluded that the adverts were not
irresponsible.
The ASA noted that the scene with the dog featured in both adverts,
and ex-kids restrictions applied to these. The animal was not in
distress and a vet had been on the set when the advert was filmed.
On the basis of this, as well as the ex-kids restriction preventing
very young children from viewing the adverts, the ASA concluded
that the adverts were not cruel and would not encourage
emulation.
Risk of emulation often attracts complaints about adverts, as do
adverts featuring animals in humorous scenarios. However, this
adjudication serves to illustrate the importance of placing
appropriate timing restrictions on adverts; the ASA specifically
referred to these restrictions when reaching its decisions not to
uphold any of the complaints about this advert.
RETAIL
5. LA Muscle TV Limited, 13 October 2010
This adjudication relates to eight television adverts for various food supplements. Two of the adverts featured products named "Fat Stripper" and "Fat Stripper Intense" respectively, whilst one of the other products advertised was named "Slinky". Certain adverts referred to the respectively advertised products as "pharmaceutical grade".
Complaint/Decision
The CAP Monitoring team challenged the adverts on five grounds
including that the product names "Fat Stripper",
"Fat Stripper Intense" and
"Slinky" were implied claims. One of the
challenges also related to whether "pharmaceutical
grade" implied that the supplements were as effective as
pharmaceutical products.
The ASA upheld all of the complaints about these adverts, including
those set out above. It considered that the names "Fat
Stripper" and "Fat Stripper Intense"
implied claims that the respective products would remove fat. This
was enhanced by the images of muscular, lean models used in each of
the relevant adverts. In the absence of evidence to substantiate
the claims that the products would remove fat, the ASA concluded
that the adverts for these products were misleading. Similarly, the
advert for "Slinky" featured a female fitness
model. The ASA further considered that the advert contained a
testimonial that could not be supported by documentary evidence and
therefore "Slinky" was a misleading claim.
This adjudication highlights the role of the CAP Monitoring team in
reviewing and, on occasion, challenging adverts by means of formal
complaint, notwithstanding the absence of other complaints to the
ASA. Further, the decision reminds advertisers that product names
themselves can be found to constitute advertising claims and
therefore, where this is the case, must be capable of
substantiation.
6. Sit-Up Ltd, 20 October 2010
A teleshopping advert for a wind-up radio featured a presenter
encouraging viewers to purchase the product. The presenter stated
"here comes the price that we paid for it,
£18". The price at which the product was being sold
was £4.
Complaint/Decision
The complainant challenged whether the claim "here
comes the price that we paid for it, £18" was
misleading and could be substantiated.
In its response to the ASA, the advertiser explained that a
production error had meant that £18 was quoted as the
advertiser's cost price, when in fact this had been
£7.80. The ASA noted that customers who had bought the
products had still received the product for less than the cost
price, despite the error. However, presenting a price that was so
much higher than the real cost price implied that consumers were
getting a better deal than they actually were, which the ASA
considered might have encouraged viewers who would not normally
have purchased the product to do so. The complaint was therefore
upheld.
Although this adjudication concerned a clear error on pricing, this
is another area which often attracts complaints. When advertising
these sorts of pricing incentives, advertisers need to ensure that
they take account of the BERR Pricing Practices Guide as well as
the CAP or BCAP Codes. The OFT is also currently looking at pricing
issues including
reference pricing.
7. Waitrose Ltd, 20 October 2010
This adjudication concerns two television adverts featuring
celebrity chefs discussing food, together with a press advert for
meat. The first television advert showed a celebrity chef
discussing pork with a farmer and included statements such as
"in my opinion, some of the best tasting pork comes from
British pigs that have been outdoor bred". The chef then
asked the farmer what he thought made outdoor pigs more tasty, to
which the farmer responded "... plenty of fresh air,
cereal-based diet and of course a comfortable bed". The
advert featured shots of pigs laying on straw in a sty. In the
second television advert the celebrity chef stated
"Waitrose essential pork comes from pigs that are outdoor
bred...". The advert also made reference to
"happy pigs".
The press advert included the text "All essential Waitrose
pork and bacon comes from British outdoor bred
pigs".
Complaint/Decision
Five members of the public complained that the adverts were
misleading on the basis that they implied that Waitrose meat came
from pigs that spent the duration of their lives outdoors. They
understood that, in fact, after a few weeks the pigs were reared
indoors.
The ASA upheld these complaints; it acknowledged that in the
pig-farming industry the term "outdoor bred"
might be commonly understood to refer to pigs that had been born
outdoors where they were kept for a period before being moved
indoors. However, the ASA considered that the average consumer was
unlikely to understand its meaning without explanation and that the
adverts implied that the pigs lived outdoors. As this was not the
case, the ASA concluded that the adverts were misleading.
This adjudication reminds advertisers that any terms used in their
adverts must be understandable to consumers; in this instance it
was insufficient that the terminology used was industry-accepted
jargon.
8. Tesco Stores Ltd, 13 October 2010
A national press advert for Tesco stated "Finest Beef.
Our butchers take their time... Tesco butchers are fussy when it
comes to Finest beef. For starters, they'll only use meat from
long established, family-run British farms". Small print
read "Subject to availability. Selected UK
stores".
Complaint/Decision
WM Morrison Supermarkets challenged the advert on three grounds:
First, on the basis that it misleadingly implied that Tesco
employed its own butchers; secondly, that it misleadingly implied
that Tesco cut meat for customers in-store; and thirdly, that claim
regarding the use of meat from "long established, family
run British farms" was misleading and could not be
substantiated.
The ASA did not uphold any of these claims. It noted that butchers
at Tesco's two meat suppliers worked to Tesco specifications
and that suppliers at those sites only supplied Tesco; although the
butchers were employed by the meat suppliers, they only worked on
meat for Tesco. Accordingly the ASA did not consider that the
claims relating to "Tesco butchers" were
misleading. In respect of the second challenge to the advert, the
ASA acknowledged that in shops that had meat counters, in-store
butchers prepare meat for customers. It considered that the
footnote made it clear to consumers that in-store butchers were not
available in every Tesco store. The ASA therefore concluded that
the advert was not misleading in this respect. Finally, the ASA
considered the evidence provided by Tesco, which listed every farm
from which their Finest beef was sourced. The document, as well as
accompanying signed testimonials, substantiated the claim that
Tesco "only use meat from long established, family-run
British farm". Accordingly, the ASA did not uphold this
complaint.
This advert is the latest in a series of complaints made by major
supermarkets against competitors' advertising campaigns. Claims
by major supermarkets as to the quality and the sourcing of their
products (often emphasising local credentials) are particularly
subject to attention. For example, Tesco was recently the subject
of an
adjudication in respect of its "in-store" bakeries
(July 2010), in respect of which the claim was, on that occasion,
upheld.
LEISURE
9. Nintendo of Europe GmbH, 20 October 2010
A TV advert for a games console showed two boys in the back of a
car playing a game. Both boys were wearing standard
seatbelts.
Complaint/Decision
The ASA received one complaint that the advert was
irresponsible; the complainant believed that the children fell
within the age and height restrictions to use a child booster seat,
but in the advert neither did so.
The ASA noted the height up to which children must use booster
seats and noted that the younger child was exactly that height. The
older child was taller and therefore both were legally able to wear
a normal style seatbelt without a booster seat.
Despite the complaint not being upheld, this advert serves as a
warning for advertisers that their adverts may attract unexpected
safety complaints. In June 2009, the ASA received complaints about
an advert for Diet Coke in which the singer Duffy was shown riding
a bicycle without reflective clothing. These complaints were also
not upheld. However, in August 2007, the ASA upheld a complaint in
respect of a Coca-Cola advert for a sports drink on the basis that
the cyclist featured was not wearing reflective clothing or lights.
Advertisers should therefore be aware of the need to carefully
consider safety issues.
10. Virgin Media Ltd, 27 October 2010
A newspaper/magazine insert for Virgin Media advertised "TV and calls from £5.50 a month when you switch to a Virgin phone line ... It's all yours from just £5.50 a month..." Text below stated "All the best channels", "Plus a range of HD channels" and "Plus loads On Demand" and showed logos of a number of TV channels and On Demand services. The text also stated "Over 500 movies On Demand, many in HD, and thousands of TV shows to watch whenever you want ...".
The advert contained small print which read "On Demand movies are pay-per-title. TV Choice On Demand is included with TV size XL or £7 a month with TV sizes M and L..."
On the third page, under the heading "£5.50 a month", ticked boxes stated "TV - 65 digital TV channels ...". Ticked boxes underneath the heading "£23 a month" stated "TV -160 digital TV channel ... All our amazing HD channels ...".
Complaint/Decision
The advert attracted a complaint from Sky, who challenged whether the claim "It's all yours from £5.50 a month" misleadingly implied that all the TV channels and On Demand services listed in the leaflet were included in the £5.50 package. Sky also challenged whether the claim "All the best channels" was misleading and could be substantiated, as only three of the listed channels were in the top 15 most watched satellite and cable channels.
The ASA considered that the tick boxes on the third page of the insert made it clear that 65 channels were included within the package. However, the tick boxes did not indicate which channels those were and the ASA considered that the use of the TV/On Demand logos with the claims "It's all yours from just £5.50 a month ..." and "All the best channels" implied that all of the listed channels and services were included. As this was not the case, the ASA upheld the complaint in respect of Sky's first challenge.
In relation to the second challenge, the ASA considered that the insert did not make reference to the most popular or most watched channels, but instead referred to the "best" channels. The ASA considered that this was subjective and consumers would understand this to be Virgin's opinion. Accordingly the ASA did not uphold this challenge.
This adjudication, the latest in the ongoing battle between Sky about Virgin Media, is a useful example of the ASA allowing a "best" claim and acknowledging that consumers would recognise that the claim was an expression of the subjective opinion of the advertiser. Advertisers should still take care not to mislead when using such claims; the ASA in this case noted that the insert contained logos making it clear to which channels the claim related. However, this adjudication also emphasises the need for clarity when seeking to rely on a "from £x" claim, particularly for products or services which include complex packages.
11. Sony Europe Ltd, 6 October 2010
A TV advert featured children playing football in a large stadium full of supporters. After a shot on goal was saved, one of the boys turned away and spat. The advert cut to the same children playing in a park. On-screen text read "Imagine reliving the greatest games... Sony Internet TV".
Complaint/Decision
56 viewers complained that the shot of the child spitting was offensive and that the advert risked causing emulation of antisocial behaviour, on the grounds that it glamorised spitting.
The ASA noted that the scene in the advert was brief and appeared in the context of children emulating professional footballers, who spit after intense physical exercise. The ASA therefore did not consider that the advert was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, although it did note that some would find it distasteful. Also, the ASA considered that the final shot of the boys playing in a park emphasised the clearly fantastical context of the advert and did not consider that the act of spitting had been glamorised.
Despite a relatively large number of complaints, this is an example of an advert that was acceptable to the ASA, notwithstanding its acknowledgement that some consumers might find it in bad taste. This accords with recent decisions taken by the ASA, such as that in respect of the Nandos adverts. This is an example of a situation where emulation was not considered to be a risk on the basis that the advert was fantastical and removed from reality.
12. MTV Networks Europe t/a Viva, 20 October 2010
Two TV adverts for a TV channel featured characters who spoke with South African accents and who consequently pronounced "like" as "lick". One stated "We lick Viva eh. I lick it a lot, I can't get enough. I'm licking it twenty four seven". The final scene in the adverts showed four people spelling out "VIVA" with their bodies. A voice-over with an English accent stated "lick your Viva".
The first advert also showed the names of TV shows, together with the word "VIVA" on the front of a t-shirt, shaved into someone's hair and on a man's torso. This advert had no timing restiction placed on it. In the second advert, names of TV programmes were shown on a woman's breast; she pulled her top down to partly expose this. This advert carried an ex-kids restriction.
Complaint/Decision
The ASA received three complaints from viewers who thought that the adverts were likely to cause serious or widespread offence because they were sexually suggestive. They also challenged whether the adverts were suitable for showing when children might be watching.
The ASA acknowledged that the adverts might be distasteful to some, but considered that they were intended to show "Viva" in a light-hearted way. With regard to the second advert, the ASA considered that, although one of the women moved her top down slightly, the advert was not explicit or overtly sexual. The ASA also took into account the timing restriction, which meant that the second advert was unlikely to be viewed by children watching TV alone. The ASA noted that the first advert did not contain the suggestive scenes and therefore did not consider it unsuitable for children. Accordingly the ASA did not uphold the complaints.
This decision, as with that relating to Premier Foods Group Ltd above, again serves to remind advertisers of the need to target adverts at appropriate consumers and to apply suitable timing restrictions, particularly where a theme in the advert might be regarded as more suitable for adults.
OTHER
13. The Automobile Association Ltd, 13 October 2010
An internet sales promotion for driving lessons was entitled "HALF PRICE AA driving lessons from only £10.50 per hour*". The asterisk referred consumers to a footnote which stated that the discounted lessons were based on a minimum block booking of five hours, the first three hours of which would be charged at full price with the last two being charged at half price.
Complaint/Decision
One person complained that the headline claim was misleading, as the footnote stated that the first three hours would be charged at full price, with the fourth and fifth at half price.
The ASA upheld this complaint. It acknowledged that the asterisk referred consumers to the terms and conditions of the offer and noted that it was acceptable for the AA to offer discounted lessons dependent upon the booking of additional full price lessons. However, it considered that the headline claim implied that unlimited lessons could be booked at the discounted price; the promotion did not make clear that the discounted price stated was limited to two lessons booked as part of a block booking.
This adjudication reminds advertisers that conditions shown in adverts should qualify, rather than contradict headline claims in order to avoid misleading consumers. It is interesting to note that the conditions were available in subsequent click-throughs, but on the basis of the information in the advert, the ASA still concluded that the advert was likely to mislead.
14. Ryanair Ltd, 13 October 2010
A national press advert for Ryanair was headlined "CHEAPEST WAY TO THE SUN" and listed various destinations to which Ryanair travelled. Small print at the bottom of the advert read "Book now for summer 2010..." and gave the advertiser's website details.
Complaint/Decision
EasyJet challenged whether the headline claim "CHEAPEST WAY TO THE SUN" could be substantiated, and whether the advert was misleading because it did not make the clear on what the claim was based.
In its response to the ASA, Ryanair provided evidence in the form of fares published by its competitors and screen grabs from its competitors' and its own websites. The ASA considered this, but concluded that the statement "Book now for summer 2010..." meant that the claim must be substantiated by evidence showing that Ryanair was cheapest during the whole of summer 2010. Ryanair had not provided evidence to show that they were the cheapest for the whole period of summer 2010, and therefore the ASA concluded that the claim could not be substantiated. The ASA also noted that the advert did not make clear to consumers upon what the claim was based, and consequently readers were unlikely to know whether the claim was a price promise, an average claim relating to previous fares or Ryanair's opinion. Accordingly the ASA concluded that the advert was misleading and upheld the complaint.
This adjudication shows that if advertisers are making wide claims, they will need to have evidence to substantiate those claims. The ASA has upheld several claims against Ryanair in the past few years. Indeed, in 2008 the ASA specifically expressed extreme concern about Ryanair's breaches of the advertising codes and, in the same year, took the rare step of referring Ryanair to the Office of Fair Trading. The reference to the OFT was concluded somewhat unconvincingly in July 2009. Following that there were no complaints about Ryanair adverts for a year, until EasyJet successfully challenged a Ryanair advert in July 2010 and now this adjudication.
NON-COMMERCIAL
15. Oxfam t/a Oxfam GB, 27 October 2010
A poster for Oxfam stated "People dying thanks to climate change is a long way off. About 5000 miles, give or take ... Our politicians have the power to help get a climate deal back on track ... Let's sort it here and now".
Complaint/Decision
Four complainants challenged whether the statement in the advert was misleading and could be substantiated because they did not believe that it had been proven that people were dying as a result of climate change.
The ASA considered that there was "robust consensus" among authoritative national and international bodies that strong evidence of human-induced climate change existed. The ASA acknowledged that "Our politicians have the power to help get a climate deal back on track ... let's sort it here and now" linked human action and climate change. In its response to the ASA, Oxfam supplied information and publications from various organisations including the World Health Organisation and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change linking weather-related disasters and climate change to human deaths and diseases. The ASA noted that Oxfam's claim did not state that a specific number of deaths were attributable to climate change and the advert did not speculate about possible future deaths. As a result of this, and the consensus that climate change could be induced by humans and was resulting in deaths, the ASA concluded that the advert was not misleading.
This advert follows a similar theme to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) "Act on CO2" Bedtime Story campaign, which was the subject of 939 complaints to the ASA and in relation to which the ASA issued an adjudication in March 2010. In relation to the Oxfam advert, the ASA specifically noted that Oxfam's claim was "reasonably restrained"; in relation to the DECC advert, the ASA considered that one of the bold claims in the adverts should have been phrased "more tentatively".
MISCELLANEOUS
Department of Energy and Climate Change – Ofcom Decision
On 11 October 2010 Ofcom published the results of its investigation into the DECC "Bedtime Stories" advertising campaign. Whilst the ASA had already adjudicated on the adverts in relation to complaints within its remit, Ofcom is responsible for the rules on "political advertising". Ofcom had received 537 complaints that the advertising campaign was of a political nature, many of which had been referred to it by the ASA. Complainants had challenged whether the adverts had a political purpose, thereby breaching the Communications Act 2003 and the BCAP Television Advertising Standards Code. In its investigation Ofcom considered the purpose of the advert and the way in which the advert conveyed its message. It concluded that the advert was of a "public service nature" and therefore it did not breach the legislation and Code.
Prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
On 2 November 2010 a rogue wheel-clamper was given a suspended prison sentence and was ordered to pay a fine and to reimburse his victims the money they had paid to secure the release of their vehicles. The clamper, who had previously been disqualified as a company director and whose business had gone into liquidation, pleaded guilty to a number of offences including aggressive trading. This is one of relatively few cases of an actual prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, after the wheel-clamper's employees used threats to intimidate motorists into paying over £300 each in clamping charges.
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 24/11/2010.