Advertising: Banned adverts

The following adverts have all been banned by ASA (Advertising Standards Authority). ASA regulates the quality of adverts shown to the public and has a set code on how adverts must be conducted to avoid spreading misleading, harmful or offensive information. It has the power to take down any adverts that breach this code. Furthermore, it can sanction and take away advertising rights from a company that repeatedly breach this code.

1. Croftscope Ltd t/a BOCA Organic Toothpastes, Print (Times newspaper)

Ruled as offensive. Breach of code 4.1 (Harm and Offence)

This advert was reported by two people due to the model featuring the toothpaste being of an overly sexual nature. The complainants pointed out that the advert objectified the woman featured. The advert featured an image of a naked woman, save for a pair of strappy heels. Her face was not shown. She was reclining next to a window with only a chair obscuring her groin. The company felt that the naked woman represented the organic nature of the product. ASA agreed that the advert objectified the woman and was not relevant to the product.

Ultimately the advert was taken down and the company was given a warning.

2. Pernod Ricard UK Ltd, Absolut Vodka, Online (Facebook sponsor)

Ruled as harmful. Breach of code 18.6 (Alcohol)

The advert was reported by one person who felt the ad breached the code as the advert featured people under the age of 25. Absolut said that all actors featured were over the age of 25 and provided identification as proof. ASA assessed that the actors looked under 25 because of the use of mobile phones with the actors partying, which is widely viewed as adolescent culture. In turn, the ASA ruled that the ad should not be aired as it encouraged underage drinking.

Ultimately the advert was taken down and the company was given a warning.

3. Associated Newspapers Ltd t/a Daily Mail, Iceland foods, Print (Daily Mail newspaper)

Ruled as Misleading. Breach of code 8.1 and 8.2 (Promotional marketing), 8.9, 8.10 and 8.12 (Availability), 8.17 and 8.17.8 (Significant conditions for promotions), and 8.29 (Front-page flashes)

This advert was reported by seven complainants who tried to redeem a 'Free Giant Jar of Marmite' voucher by Iceland foods featured in the Daily Mail but were turned away and told that it was out of stock. ASA ruled that it was the responsibility of Iceland foods to anticipate the stocks needed to accommodate the demands of the public who had been offered a free product. The information regarding the products availability was not presented in a clear manner and the words "subject to availability" were not sufficient.

By the time of the assessment of the complaint, the promotion had already ended. The company was given a warning.

4. Juice Garden Ltd, Online (Company website)

Ruled as misleading. Breach of code 15.1, 15.1.1 and 15.2 (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims).

The advert was reported by one person who felt the ad breached the code as the advert claimed their drink was the equivalent of a 'Flu shot' and that the drink had other questionable properties as a health drink. The products were named 'Cleanse', 'Immune', 'Energy', 'Detox Juice', 'Colon Cleanser' and 'Drink Me, Shrink Me'. These claims are subject to Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (the Regulation). These claims did not follow regulations and were therefore unlawful. One of the drinks lead consumers to believe that the drink had the same effect as a flu shot.

The ad is now not allowed to reappear in its current form. The company was given a warning.

5. Arla Foods Ltd, Print (Local press ad)

Ruled as misleading. Breach of code 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 11.3 and 11.4 (Environmental Claims).

The advert was reported by one complainant who believed that dairy farming was not good for the land or sustainable as the ad claimed. The advert contained an advert for their organic milk that stated 'Good for the land' and text underneath stating 'helping support a more sustainable future.' The company provided proof of its claims that all of its farms were organic with the appropriate documents. ASA felt that consumers would take 'Good for the land … helping to support a more sustainable future' meant that the production of the milk would ultimately have a actively positive effect on the environment which was untrue. The statement was ultimately ruled as misleading.

The advert was taken down and the company was given a warning.

6. Aquil Ltd, Print (Leaflet)

Ruled as misleading. Breach of code 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.45 (Endorsements and testimonials), 2.1 (Medical, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products) and 13.1 (Weight control and slimming).

The advert was reported by one complainant who felt that claims for the product in treating the conditions spoken of were misleading and was unsure if the testimonials were genuine. The advert advertised shoe inserts which claimed that 'Your feet can now heal your body … Helps with weight loss … Improves your concentration … Reduces your blood pressure ... Strengthen the heart and immune system' It also included multiple testimonials which described how the insoles helped with conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, arthritis and rheumatism. More information claimed '… we’ve identified over 100 mild and serious conditions that can either be prevented or treated by wearing the insoles. For example, reflexology is widely used to successfully prevent and treat illnesses, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis and poor circulation. It is also used to help relieve pain and discomfort post-surgery and severe therapy treatments such as chemotherapy'. The company acknowledged the complaint and stated that their product was not a medical product. ASA felt that the advert did not provide enough evidence to their claims and was labeled as misleading.

The advert was taken down and the company was given a warning.

7. ML&S Martin Lynch & Son's Ltd, Online (On own site)

Ruled as misleading. Breach of code 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors)

This advert was reported by one complainant who felt that the claim 'The World's Favourite Ham Store' was misleading and questionable. The advert was a claim on a website for an radio equipment business, www.hamradio.co.uk. Writing referred to ML&S Martin Lynch & Son's as 'The World's Favourite Ham Store'. The company claimed they had used the claim subjectively for 16 years previously but felt that may take this claim as fact. They also referred to a survey in which customers had reported 80% satisfaction with the company. Nevertheless, ASA remained adamant that the claim could be seen as an objective and the advert was ultimately ruled as misleading.

The advert was taken down and the company was given a warning.

See video referenced below here

8. Surrey police, Television (PSA)

Ruled as offensive. Breach of code 1.2 (Social responsibility), 4.1 and 4.4 (Harm and offence)

The advert was reported by one complainant who felt that 'noise from children could be due to them being in a harmful situation, such as witnessing domestic violence or their carers being incapacitated' and that it should be left to the person to decide whether they should report suspected harm to another person to the police. Surrey police stated that the advertisement was part of a wider campaign to stop people from reporting incidents that were not emergencies in order to reduce time wasted by police. The advert depicted living room. A baby is heard crying through in the next room. Text appeared onscreen that said 'Hello, Surrey Police 999 emergency. My neighbour’s kids are being noisy'. 'Noisy', written in blue text, was alternated with 'abused', written in red, many times. There was then a black screen with the Surrey Police logo and a statement: 'Not all calls are policing matters. To report noisy neighbours, contact your Council'. Following text said: 'When it is a policing matter Surrey Police will be there for you. Think twice. Is your call a policing matter?'. While the ASA agreed that a baby crying is normal, there is always a chance a child is at risk and the public should not be discouraged from reporting a crime even if they're unsure.

The advert was taken down and the company was given a warning.

Examples of ASA codes and what they mean:

Section 04: Harm and Offence

4.8 Advertisements must not condone or encourage harmful discriminatory behaviour or treatment. Advertisements must not prejudice respect for human dignity.

#Unit4