Ad Complaints Reports - Q1 2010
OverviewThe following are case summaries of consumers’ complaints about advertising that were upheld by National and Regional Consumer Response Councils (Councils) for the Q1 2010. Councils are composed of senior advertising industry and public representatives, who volunteer their time to adjudicate consumers’ complaints under the provisions of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (Code).
The case summaries are divided into two sections.
Identified Cases
This section identifies the involved advertisers and provides details about consumers’ complaints regarding advertisements that were found by Councils to contravene the Code. In this section, the advertising in question was not withdrawn or amended before Council met to deliberate on the complaint. Where provided, an “Advertiser’s Statement” is included in the case summary.
Non-Identified Cases
This section summarizes consumers’ complaints upheld by Councils without identifying the advertiser or the advertisement. In these cases, the advertiser either withdrew, permanently retired, or appropriately amended the advertisement in question after being advised by Advertising Standards Canada that a complaint had been received, but before the matter was adjudicated by Council.
As required by the Code, retail advertisers also ran timely corrective advertisements in consumer-oriented media that reached the same consumers to whom the original advertising was directed..
For information about the Code, the Consumer Complaint Procedure, and previous Ad Complaint Reports select the following links:
 |
||
| Canadian Code of Advertising Standards | ||
|
|
||
| Consumer Complaint Procedure | ||
|
|
||
| Previous Ad Complaints Reports |
|
|
Identified Cases - January 1, 2010 - March 31, 2010
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Agropur Cooperative |
| Industry: | Food/Supermarkets |
| Region: | National |
| Media: | Television |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | Two infants – apparently under six months of age – were featured throughout a commercial that promoted the purity of a brand of milk. |
| Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the way the infants were featured with the advertised milk conveyed the impression that fluid milk was suitable for feeding to infants. |
| Decision: | It was understood that the advertiser did not intend to suggest that fluid milk was suitable for infants. Nonetheless, in Council’s opinion, the general impression conveyed by the commercial was that the advertised product was so pure that it could safely be fed to infants. Council, therefore, found that the commercial conveyed an inaccurate impression about the advertised product. |
| Infraction: | Clause 1(a). |
|
Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Origin BioMed |
| Industry: | Personal and Proprietary |
| Region: | National |
| Media: | Newspaper |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | An “article” that appeared in a full-page supplement in a daily newspaper extolled the benefits of only one product – Neuragen® – as a treatment for a specified medical condition. The supplement was captioned “A Special Information Supplement”. On the same page, immediately below the article, an advertisement for the same product appeared. |
| Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the “article” was, in fact, an advertisement and should have been clearly identified as such. |
| Decision: | Although the article was styled as an “information supplement“, and had the format and appearance of a newspaper article, Council found that the supplement was actually advertising, not “information”, and should have been identified as advertising. Council also found that by failing to clearly identify the supplement as advertising, the advertisement was presented in a manner that concealed the advertiser’s commercial intent. |
| Infraction: | Clause 2. |
|
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Virgin Mobile Canada |
| Industry: | Service |
| Region: | National |
| Media: | Out-of-home |
| Complaint: | 38 |
| Description: | Three similar, but different, advertisements in an out-of-home campaign for a wireless phone service featured different couples with angel wings apparently engaging in sexually-suggestive behaviour. A tag line at the bottom of the advertisement read “Hook-up Fearlessly.” |
| Complaint: | The complainants alleged that this advertising in public spaces depicted provocative sexual images, and/or offensively depicted homosexual images, and/or unacceptably depicted sexualized images of angels. |
| Decision: | To Council, the various depictions of sexual behaviour in connection with the idiomatic phrase "hook up fearlessly” in public space advertising offended prevailing standards of public decency under the Code. The advertising could have been acceptable had it appeared in adult - targeted media, such as magazines that are not intended for viewing by the general public, and in which the depiction of what, in this advertising, appeared to be casual sex is more commonly found. Council, therefore, concluded that, with or without the angels’ wings, this advertising appearing in an out-of-home medium contravened the Code. |
| Infraction: | Clause 14(d). |
Non-Identified Cases - January 1, 2010 - March 31, 2010
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Rental Service |
| Industry: | Automotive |
| Region: | National |
| Media: | Internet |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | The advertiser offered a bonus with the rental of a vehicle from the advertiser at participating airport locations. |
| Complaint: | The complainant did not receive the promised bonus when renting a vehicle at one of the airports listed in the advertisement. |
| Decision: | The advertiser acknowledged the error. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate representation about a product and omitted relevant information. |
| Infraction: | Clauses 1 (a) and (b). |
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Retailer |
| Industry: | Retail |
| Region: | National |
| Media: | Radio |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | In a radio commercial, a retailer of luxury products claimed that its products were superior in quality and cost less than those sold by its competitors. |
| Complaint: | That the claims were misleading. |
| Decision: | Council found that the comparative claims were unsubstantiated by the information submitted to it by the advertiser. As a result, Council found that the commercial contained misleading claims about a product, and unfairly discredited and disparaged other products and services. |
| Infraction: | Clauses 1 (a); (d); and Clause 6. |
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Retailer |
| Industry: | Retail |
| Region: | Ontario |
| Media: | Flyers |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | In a flyer from a hardware retailer, a free power tool was offered with the purchase of another power tool made by a specified manufacturer. |
| Complaint: | Two tools, not one, had to be purchased in order to obtain the free product. |
| Decision: | The advertiser acknowledged that an error had been made inadvertently in the flyer. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate representation about a product and omitted relevant information. |
| Infraction: | Clauses 1 (a) and (b). |
|
Clause 10: Safety |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Consumer Product Manufacturer |
| Industry: | Personal and Proprietary |
| Region: | National |
| Media: | Television |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | Upon finding themselves in an unexpectedly dangerous encounter with a wild animal, the vacationers in this commercial ran away. |
| Complaint: | That the commercial depicted a potentially unsafe and dangerous response, in direct contrast to the action that experts recommend be taken in similar circumstances. |
| Decision: | Recognizing that the advertiser did not intend to depict or recommend an unsafe reaction with potentially dangerous consequences, Council found that the commercial did, in fact, depict, whether intentionally or otherwise, a situation that might reasonably be interpreted as encouraging unsafe practices. |
| Infraction: | Clause 10. |
