This quarter, in line with the ASA's areas of focus, there were several rulings against companies making green claims. We saw a triplet of rulings against 'big oil' for broadly omitting material information including as to their emissions and the effect their overall activity has on the environment.
We also saw two complaints against water companies – one against Anglian Water upheld and one against Severn Trent Water not upheld. The difference in outcome was largely based on the different Environmental Performance Assessment ratings of the companies. Severn Trent scores four out of four, classifying it as an industry leading company, while Anglian Water scores only two out of four. This meant that the environmental claims made by Severn Trent's in its advert were not out of kilter with its current overall environmental performance. This was despite the fact that Severn Trent Water had a history of releasing sewage into the environment. The ruling illustrates that companies that improve their overall environmental performances might be given greater leeway as regards environmental claims in their adverts.
Below are our top ASA rulings from the past quarter.
ASA ruling on Anglian Water Services Ltd
- Date of ruling: 14 June 2023
The ruling concerned two identical adverts on TV and VOD. The advert featured a girl who said, “Right now Anglian Water is creating wetlands to clean water using nature and make homes for wildlife…everything they do today is for tomorrow …”. The advert featured various scenes of wildlife and nature, as well as renewable energy sources (a wind turbine, an electric van with text on the side saying, "100% electric 0% emissions").
The complaints challenged whether the adverts were misleading because they omitted significant information about Anglian Water's history of releasing sewage into the environment.
Upholding the complaint, the ASA emphasised that the CAP and BCAP codes require the basis of environmental claims to be clear, and that unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information. The fact that Anglian Water, despite carrying out several activities which could have a positive impact on the environment, also carried out several activities that caused harm to the environment contradicted the overall impression of the advert and the ASA considered this material information which should have been made clearer.
ASA ruling on Severn Trent Water Ltd
- Date of ruling: 14 June 2023
The complaints related to a TV advert that featured a voice-over that stated, “… we’re working towards protecting it, nature and our future by planting a bucket load of trees. One point three million in fact. And we’ve planted the town green with 72 tiny forests to keep our grand-kids grand-kids connected with nature. Let’s do right by our environment, our community, our water.…”.
The complainants challenged whether the adverts were misleading, because they omitted significant information about Anglian Water's history of releasing sewage into the environment.
The decision to not uphold the complaints centred around Severn Trent's overall Environmental Performance Assessment (EPA) rating of four stars (out of four). The ASA held that, because the company's overall environmental performance did not contradict the overall impression of the advert, it was not misleading to omit information as to Severn Trent's history of releasing sewage into the environment.
ASA ruling on Repsol SA
- Date of ruling: 7 June 2023
The ruling concerned a paid-for online display advert for Repsol that was seen on the Financial Times' website. The advert featured text that stated, "At Repsol, we are developing biofuels and synthetic fuels to achieve net zero emissions”. Later, text was shown that stated, “Renewable fuels for more sustainable mobility”.
The complaint challenged two issues: (1) whether the advert was misleading because it omitted significant information about the overall impact of Repsol's business activities; and (2) whether the basis of the claim, “At Repsol, we are developing biofuels and synthetic fuels to achieve net zero emissions” was clear.
The CAP Code states that unqualified claims can mislead if material information is omitted. Although Repsol's claims of developing biofuels and synthetic fuels does come under its general business activities and are visible on its website, the ASA highlighted that further information to contextualise how and when Repsol would achieve net zero emissions, and the role that the development of biofuels would play, was material to consumers' understanding of the advert's overall message and should have appeared in the advert itself. Therefore, the complaint was upheld.
Regarding point (2), the complaint was upheld on the basis that there was a lack of any contextual information explaining that the initiative was part of a wider plan to achieve net zero by 2050. The claim was not clear and likely to mislead.
ASA ruling on Shell UK Ltd
- Date of ruling: 7 June 2023
The ruling concerned (a) a poster, (b) a TV advert, and (c) a YouTube advert for Shell.
(a) The poster featured large text that stated "BRISTOL is READY for Cleaner Energy" on a cityscape of Bristol. Further text at the bottom of the poster stated, “In the South West 78,000 homes use 100% renewable electricity from Shell Energy” above text that stated, “Shell['s]…renewable electricity is supplied by the National Grid and certified by Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin, matching electricity bought with the equivalent amount from 100% renewable sources”.
(b) The TV advert shows texts saying, “In the UK, 1.4 million households use 100% renewable electricity from Shell”. The advert moves on to state, “And with more electric car charge points coming to Shell forecourts near you, the UK is ready for Cleaner energy.” The video ended with large on-screen text “The UK is READY for Cleaner Energy” followed by the Shell logo and the hashtag “#PoweringProgress”.
(c) The YouTube advert was identical to advert (b).
The complaint challenged whether: (1) the adverts were misleading because they omitted significant information about the overall environmental impact of Shell's business activities in 2022, and (2) the claims, “In the South West 78,000 homes use 100% renewable electricity from Shell Energy” in advert (a) and “In the UK, 1.4 million households use 100% renewable electricity from Shell” in adverts (b) and (c) were misleading and could not be substantiated.
In upholding part (1), the ASA discusses how the adverts gave the overall impression that a significant proportion of Shell’s business comprised lower-carbon energy products. Further information about the proportion of Shell’s overall business model that comprises lower-carbon energy products was material information that should have been included. Because the adverts did not include such information, the ASA concluded that they omitted material information and were likely to mislead.
Regarding part (2) of the complaint, the ASA stated that Shell appropriately substantiated their claim of delivering 100% renewable electricity to 1.4 million UK households, as the adverts made clear that the electricity was supplied via the National Grid rather than directly. The ASA concluded that the adverts were not likely to mislead, and the complaint was not upheld.
ASA ruling on Petroliam Nasional Berhad t/a PETRONAS
- Date of ruling: 7 June 2023
The ruling relates to a TV advert for Petronas, which began with audio and images highlighting the current environmental disasters in the world. Petronas verbally acknowledges their role in these issues, and states that "we started connecting the dots, to become a progressive energy and solutions partner, enriching lives for a sustainable future.” The voice-over continued by saying, “To reduce emissions, grow renewable energy, bring education to more, champion social impact and promote a circular economy, as well as achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050”.
The ASA challenged whether the advert exaggerated the total environmental benefit of the advertiser's products and services and therefore was misleading.
The CAP Code requires that the basis of environmental claims must be clear and states that claims could mislead if material information is omitted. The ASA considered information about the balance of Petronas’ current activities, its emissions, and the pathway to reducing them in line with the claims made in the advert was material information likely to affect consumers’ understanding of the advert’s overall message and so should have been made clear. It was found that the advert omitted material information and was misleading.
ASA ruling on Litty Liquor
- Date of ruling: 31 May 2023
The ruling concerned three Instagram posts from the account of alcohol brand 'Litty Liquor', featuring the rapper ArrDee. The posts variously featured ArrDee promoting bottles of the brand's spiced rum product, '4Realli', including ArrDee surrounded by bottles in a distillery and in a nightclub being served the drink mixed with cola. The final scene in the nightclub showed a box of Litty Liquor's product, along with on-screen text "#GETLIT".
The complainant challenged whether (1) the adverts breached the code because they featured someone who was, or seemed to be, under 25; and (2) whether the phrase "#GETLIT" encouraged excessive and irresponsible consumption of alcohol.
The CAP Code states that people shown drinking alcohol or playing a significant role in marketing alcohol must neither be, or seem to be, under 25 years of age. ArrDee was 20 years old at the time the adverts appeareds and he played a significant role in all three adverts. Therefore, the complaint was upheld and the adverts were in breach of the code.
On point (2) the complaint was upheld on the basis that the word "lit" had a history of being a slang term for being drunk. As such, the ASA considered the advert was likely to encourage excessive consumption of alcohol.
ASA ruling on Intrepid Travel Group UK Ltd
- Date of ruling: 31 May 2023
The complaint related to a poster advert seen on the London Underground on 7 November 2022, featuring two women in front of the Giza Pyramids in Egypt alongside text stating: "People & planet-friendly small group adventures since 1989."
The advert was challenged on the basis that the "people & planet-friendly" claim misleadingly minimised the impact of Intrepid Travel's holidays on the environment.
Upholding the complaint, the ASA emphasised that the CAP code states that environmental claims must be clear and unqualified claims can mislead if they omit significant information. The fact that the "people & planet-friendly" claim was an absolute and unqualified claim would be understood to mean that taking part in an Intrepid travel tour caused no environmental damage through its full life cycle.
Intrepid Travel was unable to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim and, consistent with the ASA's approach in this area, the complaint was upheld on the basis that the advert was misleading as to the impact of Intrepid Travel's holidays on the environment.
ASA ruling on Brilliant Minds Ltd t/a EssayMills
- Date of ruling: 19 April 2023
This is one of a slew of rulings released by the ASA on 19 April 2023 relating to adverts for essay writing services. The EssayMills website featured a header banner stating, “Scotland's Assignment Help Led by Former Professors”. Further text stated “Buy assignments from Essay Mills … With a glowing and proven track record of providing top-notch help with assignments…", and “The whole process is carried out from scratch – from ideation to research to finally composing the document. This eliminates all the possibilities of plagiarism”, along with a button to get a price quote. The ASA challenged whether the advert misleadingly implied that students could submit an essay they had bought on their own.
In upholding the complaint, the ASA considered the overall impression of the advert as one that students at Scottish Institutions could purchase an essay and submit it as their own, without risk. The advert made no reference to the risks involved in consumers purchasing work from EssayMills and submitting it as their own, which could include academic disciplinary measures. The adverts were therefore in breach of the CAP code as they were misleading.
Similar rulings were issued against 'British Dissertation Help', 'Home of Dissertations', and 'Treat Assignment Help' for misleading adverts.
ASA ruling on Phil McIntyre Live Ltd
- Date of ruling: 15 March 2023
The ruling relates to a press advert seen in The Sunday Times Culture magazine on 4 December 2022 which included the text, "Dawn French is a huge twat." Alongside a picture of Dawn French and further text, "Back due to phenomenal demand."
The complaints challenged whether the advert was likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Interestingly, in their response, Phil McIntyre argued that they would not advertise in media or locations that would not allow them to use the full title or would require them to blank out certain letters. The choice of media here was important.
In their assessment, the ASA considered that the word "twat" had the potential to cause offence to audiences. However, since it was the title of Dawn French's live tour and most readers would be aware of Dawn French and her style of comedy, most would understand it to be tongue in cheek. The word "twat" written in full was in line with The Sunday Times' editorial guidelines and had been used in full in the newspaper before without censorship.
Given that context, the ASA found that the use of the word was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to its audience and was not in breach of the code.
ASA ruling on Sophie Hinchcliffe t/a Mrs Hinch
- Date of ruling:15 March 2023
Influencer marketing remains a hot topic on the ASA's agenda. Mrs Hinch (a lifestyle 'influencer') was the subject of two separate ASA rulings this quarter, this one being of note as the ASA received a total of 34 complaints about the Instagram Stories posted on Mrs Hinch's account. The two 'Stories' featured (1) a notebook with overlaid text and a link directing viewers to the relevant product page on the Amazon website; and (2) a notebook with text stating "Tap to shop" above a link to the product page on the Amazon website.
The complaints challenged whether the two adverts were obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.
In relation to post (1), the ASA upheld the complaint on the basis that the post was a marketing communication, and was not adequately labelled as an advert. The #advert identifier should be used in marketing communications on social media.
In relation to post (2), the ASA took a different view that the overall context of the advert, including the way it was presented and the reference to the 'Hinch' brand, made it obviously identifiable as a marketing communication. This seems to be a slightly more relaxed approach from the ASA than it has previously taken in respect of influencer marketing.
ASA ruling on DeadHappy Ltd t/a DeadHappy
- Date of ruling: 12 April 2023
DeadHappy, a life insurance company, clearly like to walk the compliance tightrope. This is the second time that they have featured in our quarterly round up of ASA decisions.
The complaint centred around a TV advert that began with a black screen and a voice saying, “Well that's it then, I should have got life insurance. Bit late for that now.” It went on to a scene with two men, the first saying, “No it’s not too late, you can sign up with DeadHappy day or night”, to which the second man replies "Oi, switch that light off, I'm not made of money." The first man then says, “We're all skint mate, but DeadHappy's life insurance is really affordable”, to which the second man responds, “Yeah but at the moment mate, there’s like, more important things to pay for." The complainant challenged whether the advert was offensive because it trivialised the concerns of those who could not afford to heat their home.
The ASA did not uphold the complaint on the basis that it should be considered in the context of widespread news coverage about the increasing cost of living, including rising household energy bills. Whilst the advert had taken the analogy to the extreme, showing icicles hanging in the house, it was not in breach of the code. The advert was 'distasteful' but not offensive.
ASA ruling on Etihad Airways
- Date of ruling: 12 April 2023
This ruling covered two separate paid-for Facebook adverts which sought to make claims about the airline's environmental and sustainability credentials. The first video showed an Etihad plane flying with accompanying text, "We understand the impact flying has on the environment. That’s why we are taking a louder, bolder approach to sustainable aviation”.
The second advert included the same text and an Etihad plane in flight but went on to show further text stating, “At Etihad, we are cutting back …”., “… on single-use plastics … and are flying the most modern and efficient planes. Flights with a smaller footprint.”
The ASA challenged whether the adverts were misleading by exaggerating the environmental benefits of flying with Etihad. Whilst the ASA acknowledged Etihad's comments, in particular about their use of modern aircraft and practices to reduce emissions, the complaints were upheld. Insufficient substantiation had been given with the claims and therefore the adverts exaggerated the impact that flying with Etihad would have on the environment in breach of the code.
ASA ruling on THG Nutrition Limited t/a My Protein
- Date of ruling: 19 April 2023
My Protein were subject to two separate ASA rulings in April, both related to information and claims on the MyProtein website on price savings that could be made on purchases of their sports nutrition products. The first featured a banner with text “BUY MORE, SAVE MORE 45% OFF £65, 40% OFF £30, 35% NO MIN SPEND” alongside images of Protein Pancake Mix, Impact Whey Protein and a Layered Protein Gingerbread bar. A second page featured the same banner text on the product page for a "Hotel Chocolat Layered Protein Bar".
The complaint centred around the fact that the discounts did not apply to all available products, including the Hotel Chocolat layered protein bar.
The ASA considered that, in the absence of qualifying information, consumers would expect the promotional discount to apply to all products across the website. In particular, by featuring the claim on a product page, consumers would understand this to mean that the listed product was explicitly included in the promotion, which it was not. The adverts were therefore deemed to be misleading and in breach of the code.
The facts around the second ruling were similar but related to a different claim on the website where a banner included text “BLACK FRIDAY UP TO 80% OFF EVERYTHING USE CODE: BLACK”. The complainant was unable to identify products with a saving of more than 5% and challenged whether the reference to 80% in the claim was misleading and could be substantiated.
The ASA considered that consumers would interpret the claim "up to 80% off everything" to mean that consumers would make a genuine saving against the usual selling price of all products in the Black Friday sale and the "off everything" language implied the discount applied to all products sold by MyProtein.
MyProtein were unable to provide sufficient substantiation or evidence for the claims. Again, the ASA ruled that the advert was misleading and in breach of the code.
ASA ruling on Chala's Beauty Box
- Date of ruling: 26 April 2023
Social media is always a fertile ground for ASA complaints. However, this ruling is particularly notable as it forms part of a wider strategy being undertaken by the ASA focussing on adverts for sclerotherapy treatments. The advert was identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by the ASA, rather than a public complaint. Further related rulings were also published on 26 April 2023 by the ASA against 'Venus Beauty & Aesthetics', 'Victoria Anne Beauty' and 'The Secret Diamond Academy'.
Two adverts appear on the Chala's Beauty Box Facebook account. The first was a post advertising sclerotherapy (a procedure for treatment of thread veins), stating “Sclerotherapy is a procedure used to treat blood vessel malformations and also malformations of the lymphatic system. A medicine is injected into the vessels, which makes them shrink. Sclerotherapy involves injecting a solution directly into the vein.” This appeared alongside a photo of a thread vein sufferer’s leg. The second was a Facebook reel which showed part of the sclerotherapy treatment process with expandable text beneath describing the treatment.
The ASA challenged whether the adverts breached the code on the basis they advertised a prescription-only medicine (POM) to the public.
Under the CAP Code, POMs or prescription-only medical treatments cannot be advertised to the public. The adverts were publicly available on the Chala's Beauty Box Facebook page and stated that sclerotherapy was a procedure used to treat blood vessel malformations. In their response, Chala's Beauty Box confirmed the treatment involved the use of a POM. The adverts therefore breached the CAP code for advertising a POM and prescription-only medical treatment.
