UK: ASA Adjudications Snapshot - April 2010

Last Updated: 1 June 2010
Article by Susan Barty and Susie Carr

This article provides a selection of the most interesting ASA adjudications from April and a summary of the key issues considered in the adjudications.

This month, the ASA gave particular consideration to the importance of imagery in providing context for claims made in ads and gave consideration to the circumstances in which comparative claims should be construed as unfair.

FOOD AND DRINK

1. Kellogg Marketing and Sales Company (UK) Ltd t/a Kellogg's, 7 April 2010 (high sugar snacks advertised in small quantities not in breach)

HEALTH AND BEAUTY

2. Tesco Ireland Ltd t/a Tesco Diets, 28 April 2010 (details of weight loss regime omitted)

3. Equafleece Ltd, 14 April 2010 (claim to "guard against" arthritis likely to mislead)

COMPARATIVE ADS

4. Virgin Media Ltd, 7 April 2010 (comparison against Sky product not in breach)

5. Celotex Insulation Ltd, 21 April 2010 (unfair comparison claim as to efficacy of product)

6. Superdrug Stores plc, 14 April 2010 ("get it first" claim likely to mislead)

OTHER

7. Euro Disney Association SCA t/a Disneyland Paris, 28 April 2010 (definition of "kids" in "kids go free" claim)

8. Associated Newspapers Ltd t/a Daily Mail, 7 April 2010 ("free with" claim)

NON-COMMERCIAL

9. Department for Transport, 14 April 2010 (car emissions claim not in breach)

10. Department for Children, Schools and Families, 21 April 2010 (distressing ad targeted at adults)

To view the article in full, please see below:



Full Article

This article provides a selection of the most interesting ASA adjudications from April and a summary of the key issues considered in the adjudications.

This month, the ASA gave particular consideration to the importance of imagery in providing context for claims made in ads and gave consideration to the circumstances in which comparative claims should be construed as unfair.

FOOD AND DRINK

1. Kellogg Marketing and Sales Company (UK) Ltd t/a Kellogg's, 7 April 2010 (high sugar snacks advertised in small quantities not in breach)

HEALTH AND BEAUTY

2. Tesco Ireland Ltd t/a Tesco Diets, 28 April 2010 (details of weight loss regime omitted)

3. Equafleece Ltd, 14 April 2010 (claim to "guard against" arthritis likely to mislead)

COMPARATIVE ADS

4. Virgin Media Ltd, 7 April 2010 (comparison against Sky product not in breach)

5. Celotex Insulation Ltd, 21 April 2010 (unfair comparison claim as to efficacy of product)

6. Superdrug Stores plc, 14 April 2010 ("get it first" claim likely to mislead)

OTHER

7. Euro Disney Association SCA t/a Disneyland Paris, 28 April 2010 (definition of "kids" in "kids go free" claim)

8. Associated Newspapers Ltd t/a Daily Mail, 7 April 2010 ("free with" claim)

NON-COMMERCIAL

9. Department for Transport, 14 April 2010 (car emissions claim not in breach)

10. Department for Children, Schools and Families, 21 April 2010 (distressing ad targeted at adults)

FOOD AND DRINK

1. Kellogg Marketing and Sales Company (UK) Ltd t/a Kellogg's, 7 April 2010

A poster for Coco Pops featured a picture of the cartoon character Coco the monkey dressed in school uniform. The ad stated "Ever thought of Coco Pops after school?"

Complaint/ decision

Twenty-six complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, because they believed it directly targeted school children and encouraged them to eat a snack that was high in sugar. Some of those complainants also complained because they believed it encouraged children to eat two bowls of breakfast cereal a day.

The ASA rejected both of the complaints. The ASA noted the cartoon-nature of the ad and accepted that: (a) the ad was clearly targeted at children; and (b) that the product was classed as high in sugar according to Food Standards Agency (FSA) guidance because it contained 34 g of sugar per 100 g. However, the ASA found that, due to a lack of guidance as to what could be classed as 'high' in sugar in smaller quantities, and as it was feasible that a bowl of Coco Pops could replace an after-school snack as opposed to creating a new snack, the ad was not in breach of the Code.

Second, the ASA found that it was unlikely that readers would infer from the ad that it was appropriate to eat two bowls of Coco Pops a day, nor could the ad be seen as encouraging excessive consumption or encouraging unhealthy dietary practice in children.

In this case, the advertiser was able to rely on its robust evidence and the fact that there is a lack of guidance on what constitutes 'high' amounts of sugar in small quantities. However, advertisers should continue to be careful not to imply in their ads that HFSS products should be eaten in excessive amounts, or constitute 'additional' meals or snacks. Further, advertisers should ensure that their products are not advertised in a manner which could be seen to promote an unbalanced or unhealthy diet.

HEALTH AND BEAUTY

2. Tesco Ireland Ltd t/a Tesco Diets, 28 April 2010

A leaflet for Tesco's "Weight Loss Retreats" pictured a group of women on one page and stated "Average of 2 inches off waist size" and "Up to 1 stone 2lbs loss, an average weight loss of 4.5 lbs". A second page provided information about the weight loss scheme and stated "Meet some of our success stories! Read their stories and watch their videos at www.tescodiet.com/guarantee". A man and a woman were pictured and text stated "Deane lost 4 ½stone" and "Karl lost 3 ½stone". Small print stated "Based on a starting BMI of 26 or more."

Complaint/ decision

The complainant challenged whether the ad appeared to be offering weight loss methods to obese people in an inappropriate manner.

The ASA upheld the complaint. The ASA considered that the claim "Deane lost 4 ½ stone" and "Karl lost 3 ½ stone" implied it was likely they had been obese before their weight loss, due to the amount of weight lost. The ASA noted Tesco's evidence which showed that Karl and Deane had lost the weight over an 18-month period, and that such information was available on its website. However, it found the ad to be in breach as that information had not been included in the ad itself.

The adjudication highlights the importance of advertisers including properly detailed information in their ads when making weight loss claims, particularly where large amounts of weight are purported to have been lost. In particular, details as to the time period over which the weight was lost must be included in the ad, and it is not sufficient for the reader to be able to access such information from a different source.

3. Equafleece Ltd, 14 April 2010

A press ad for jumpers for dogs stated "POLARTEC fleeces from EQUAFLEECE - the quickest way of drying off your dog and guarding against arthritis after a hard day's work."

Complaint/ decision

The complainant challenged whether the claim "guarding against arthritis" could be substantiated. In responding to the complaint, Equafleece said it had supplied dog fleeces to various customers, including veterinary surgeons, all of whom attested to the products warming properties. Further, Equafleece maintained that the ad claimed the fleece would "guard against" arthritis and did not state or imply it could prevent the disease. It said that the dictionary definition of "guard" meant "to take careful action in order to try to prevent something from happening", and argued that the dog fleeces were a precaution that could minimise the risk of developing arthritis.

The ASA upheld the complaint, considering that implicit in the definition of "guard against" was the notion of taking a preventative measure. In this regard, the ASA noted the articles sent by Equafleece suggested that dogs already suffering from arthritis might experience less pain and stiffness in their joints if kept warm, but noted they did not state that keeping joints warm would prevent arthritis. The ASA considered that readers were likely to infer from the claim that wearing the fleece could prevent dogs developing arthritis, which was a claim that had not been substantiated.

This adjudication provides useful guidance as to the ASA's interpretation of claims which purport to 'guard against' the onset of certain conditions. The decision shows that where such claims are made, whether for humans or animals, robust evidence should be provided which can show that the product actually has preventative qualities, as opposed to merely precautionary qualities.

COMPARATIVE ADS

4. Virgin Media Ltd, 7 April 2010

A mailing for Virgin Media consisted of a letter headed "If you could get better than Sky, for less than Sky, why wouldn't you?" and a brochure entitled "Why settle for a dish when you can have the whole menu?".

Complaint/ decision

British Sky Broadcasting (Sky) complained on three grounds, one of which on the basis that the claim contained within the brochure, "Better still, our V+HD Box lets you record two channels while you watch a third (sorry Sky). And you can store up to 80 hours of programmes" misleadingly implied that the Sky+ HD box was unable to store up to 80 hours of programmes. The two other complaints made by Sky were on the basis that certain claims made by Virgin in its marketing materials were misleading.

The ASA rejected all three of the complaints. In respect of the first complaint, the ASA noted that it was clear from the wording in the mailing that two separate claims were being made. The ASA considered that readers were likely to understand the first was a comparison claim between the number of recordable channels on the two services, and that the second was simply a supplementary claim about the amount of storage hours on Virgins V+HD box, rather than a comparison with the storage on a Sky+HD box. On this basis, the ad was unlikely to mislead readers.

This decision represents the latest in the long line of complaints made between Virgin and Sky, and provides useful guidance as to in what circumstances comparisons can be made between products without being in breach of the Code. Although the decision, particularly on the first complaint, was not surprising, in the light of the ongoing challenges between these advertisers it is possibly somewhat surprising that Sky chose to make such a narrow complaint on the comparative issues.

Advertisers should ensure that where comparative claims are made, these should be clearly separated from claims which relate solely to their own products, so as to prevent those claims from being viewed as misleading.

5. Celotex Insulation Ltd, 21 April 2010

Celotex advertised in a magazine ad in a trade publication and a catalogue which promoted insulation. The magazine ad was headed "Celotex is the only PIR insulation that achieves a BRE Green Guide rating of A+...Being the only provider of PIR insulation to have achieved these standards Celotex products can uniquely help optimise sustainable building solutions." The catalogue was headed "Celotex Sustainability and The Road to Zero Carbon" and compared Celotex against typical PIR insulation.

Complaint/ decision

The complainant challenged the ads on various grounds, one of these being on the basis that the claims made in the magazine ad implied that other PIR companies had a lower BRE Green Guide rating than Celotex, when in fact Celotex was the only PIR company with a BRE rating at all. Further, the complainant challenged whether Celotex's claim of its product producing "zero carbon" could be substantiated.

The ASA upheld all but one of the complaints. In respect of the claim that Celotex was the only PIR insulation to have been awarded an A+ rating, the ASA acknowledged the evidence submitted by Celotex which proved this point. However, the ASA found that the wording of the claim in the ad implied other companies had been assessed but had not reached the A+ standard, which had not been the case. Therefore, the ad was likely to mislead, and was found to be in breach of the Code.

In respect of the "zero carbon" complaint, the ASA rejected the complaint, and found that the claim was not in breach of the Code. In its reasoning, the ASA referred to the imagery used by Celotex in its ad which showed a road featuring several key milestones and target dates for housing reductions in CO2. Further text in the ad had satisfactorily explained how reductions in CO2 leading to "zero carbon" new build homes by 2016 formed part of "The Code for Sustainable Homes". For these reasons, the ASA found that the ad was not misleading.

This adjudication serves to remind advertisers to exercise caution when making claims about their products which may be implied as providing unfair comparisons with other products. This is particularly so where such products have not been assessed against equal criteria in the ad.

The adjudication also highlights the value of advertisers using imagery in their ads to provide context for headline claims.

6. Superdrug Stores plc, 14 April 2010

A press ad for L'Oreal Youth Code stated "Get it first ... only at Superdrug."

Complaint/ decision

Boots challenged whether the claims "Get it first" and "only at Superdrug" were misleading, because the product was not available exclusively at Superdrug and was sold by other retailers.

Superdrug said they were the first retailer to stock the three L'Oreal Youth Code products featured in the ad. They explained that the ad was placed on 22 and 23 January 2010 and that no other retailer sold the product until 24 January 2010; they therefore believed it was accurate to claim that consumers could "Get it first" at Superdrug. Superdrug refuted the challenge that the ad claimed it was exclusively available at their stores because they believed it was implicit in the claim "Get it First" that other retailers would sell the product in future.

The ASA considered that the ad made clear that the L'Oreal products were available first at Superdrug, and viewed that readers would understand from the word "first" that other retailers would subsequently sell the product. The ASA did not consider it likely that readers would infer from the ad that Superdrug stocked the products on an exclusive basis.

However, the ASA upheld the complaint, on the basis that it had evidence that Boots had actually started to sell the products on 23 January 2010. Therefore, although the claim "Get it first ... only at Superdrug" was correct and unlikely to mislead when the ad was placed on 22 January, because the products were available at Boots when it appeared on 23 January, it was likely to be misleading.

Advertisers should always ensure that up-to-date and verifiable research is carried out, particularly before making claims which make reference to competitors' products and/or sales information.

OTHER

7. Euro Disney Association SCA t/a Disneyland Paris, 28 April 2010

A TV ad showed a series of rides at Disneyland Paris. The voice-over stated "Hop over to the magic of Disneyland Paris and meet all your family's favourite characters. From January 3 to April 1 enjoy two nights, three days from only £150 per adult in a Disney hotel. Plus all kids go free ...". The text "all kids go free" appeared in gold on the screen. On-screen text stated "One paying adult per room. Kids under 12."

Complaint/ decision

The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading, because they believed the claim "All kids go free" was contradicted by the on-screen text "kids under 12".

Euro Disney argued that the ad had clearly stated on screen that children had to be under the age of 12 to be eligible for the offer and also invited the viewer to check full terms and conditions on their website. Further, it argued that it was common in the airline industry to define children as 2 to 11 years of age and attached examples. Clearcast also commented that, although they felt confident "all kids" was consistent with the travel and holiday industry's classification of a child, they had, nonetheless, requested that the advertiser include the qualifying text "kids under 12" for clarity.

The ASA upheld the complaint. Although it noted the travel and holiday industry generally defined "kids" as younger children aged 2 to 11, the ASA considered the average viewer might not hold such a specific definition, and the claim "All kids go free" was contradicted rather than clarified by the claim "kids under 12". As such, the ad was misleading.

This adjudication is somewhat surprising given that Euro Disney and Clearcast had provided evidence of the relevant industry standard definition of "kids", and had taken precautionary steps to provide qualifications in the ad itself to make clear the terms of the offer to the public. Advertisers should make very clear the exact terms of any offers, particularly any restrictions, and avoid using terms which could give rise to ambiguity.

8. Associated Newspapers Ltd t/a Daily Mail, 7 April 2010

A front-page flash on the Daily Mail stated "Free With Tomorrows Mail - Poirot - Free DVD".

Complaint/ decision

Two readers complained that the flash was misleading because it did not make clear that the DVD would not be included with the newspaper, but had to be collected from either Tesco or WH Smith.

The ASA upheld the complaint, finding that the front-page flash had implied that the DVD would be included "with" the following day's newspaper. The ASA noted the fact that consumers could also claim the DVD by using the coupon inside the promotional issue of the newspaper, but did not consider that this option removed the expectation that the disc would be inside the next day's newspaper.

Advertisers should avoid using "free with" claims where the 'free' item is not physically accompanying the purchased product, but instead needs to be collected from a store or sent off for.

NON-COMMERCIAL

9. Department for Transport, 14 April 2010

A TV ad for the Act on CO2 campaign showed an image of what appeared to be an industrial chimney emitting pollution into the atmosphere. The shot opened to reveal the chimney was, in fact, a car exhaust emitting fumes. The voice-over stated "Scientists say rising CO2 emissions are causing our climate to change. In the UK, over 40% of these emissions are caused by the things we do as individuals. Car travel is the single biggest contributor to this." The on-screen text stated "UK Government data, 2009". The voice-over went on to say "But together we can begin to make a difference by driving 5 miles less a week".

Complaint/ decision

Fifty-two viewers challenged whether the claim that car emissions were the "single biggest contributor" to human-produced CO2 emissions, could be substantiated. Two viewers challenged whether the claim could be substantiated because they believed that emissions from livestock were greater.

The ASA rejected both of the complaints. In respect of the first complaint, the ASA noted that the DfT had satisfactorily qualified its claim by referring only to emissions caused by individuals' actions, as opposed to commercial or industrial causes. In this regard, the ASA found that the DfT's evidence was reliable in evidencing that of these actions, car travel was indeed the biggest sole contributor.

In respect of the second complaint, the ASA found that the DfT had made it sufficiently clear that the emissions referred to in the ad related solely to the actions of individuals, as opposed to "the contribution made by human beings as a whole through industrial production or rearing of livestock".

Green issues are always likely to attract particular attention and be subject to scrutiny. This decision follows on from last month's adjudication on the Department of Transport's Act on CO2 campaign, which received over 950 complaints ( click here to view last month's Law-Now on this adjudication). Although the campaign continues to receive a large number of complaints and has received negative publicity from some areas, the ASA has thus far only found two of the DfT's ads to be in breach of its code, and only to a limited extent.

This adjudication highlights the importance of making appropriately qualified claims. Advertisers should seek robust and reliable sources of evidence before making claims, particularly those which relate to environmental issues. Advertisers should also be aware of the provisions of the new CAP Code (to come into force in September 2010), which sets out, amongst other things, when such environmental claims can be made and the evidence required to substantiate those claims.

10. Department for Children, Schools and Families, 21 April 2010

Two TV ads, for the 'Why Let Drink Decide?' campaign, both ended with a voice-over that stated "The sooner we talk to our kids about alcohol, the less chance that drink will start making decisions for them. Why let drink decide?". They showed children, who spoke about future experiences which included: drinking alcohol, having sex, taking drugs and having fights.

Complaint/ decision

The ASA received 27 complaints, on the basis that: (a) the ads were likely to cause serious or widespread offence, in particular because they showed children discussing adult topics; and (b) because the ads could cause harm or distress to children who might be watching.

The ASA rejected both of the complaints. In respect of the first complaint, the ASA found that adult viewers were likely to understand the seriousness of the message that the ads presented, and that the content was unlikely to be seen as disproportionate to the seriousness of the message. In respect of the second complaint, the ASA noted that the ad had been cleared by Clearcast with a post-9 pm timing restriction, and considered that the restriction was sufficient to help prevent the ad being seen by young children, for whom those direct references might be unsuitable.

The decision serves to remind advertisers of the benefits of targeting ads carefully, particularly where the ads contain content which might be considered distressing for children. It is also one in a line of adjudications which show the ASA taking a more lenient approach to non-commercial ads which have an important social message (for example the ASA's March 2010 adjudication on a DfT ad which was not deemed to be in breach of the Code even though it contained potentially distressing scenes – click here to view our March Law-Now).

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 28/05/2010.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.