This quarter saw the ASA publish 87 rulings, 76 of which were upheld and 11 of which were not.  The rulings saw an unsurprising focus on topics such as children and the environment, with food/drink, gender/sex and holidays also featuring heavily.  Although the average number of complaints per ruling is over 4, this is skewed by two or three cases and actually 77% of the rulings came from just a single complaint, providing a helpful reminder that all it takes is one complaint for the ASA to investigate a potential breach of the codes.

Below are our top 10 ASA rulings from this quarter:

Ruling on Tesco Plant Chef ads

• Date of ruling: 8 June 2022
• Decision: upheld
• No. of complaints: 171

The ASA held that a cross-media ad by Tesco made misleading claims that its Plant Chef vegan products were better for the environment than their meat-based equivalents.  All the ads mentioned swapping to the Plant Chef products and included claims such as "a little swap can make a difference to the planet", "even better for the planet" and "a little swap is […] even better for the planet".

The ASA accepted that switching to a more plant-based diet is a way in which consumers can reduce their overall environmental impact. Ads which make that point in general terms are likely to be acceptable, but not if they contain claims about an advertised product in which case they should be based on the full life cycle of the product (because some specific plant-based products could have a high carbon or negative environmental impact).

The ASA held that Tesco's claims were not general claims about swapping from meat to plant-based food in general, but specific claims promoting a swap from a meat burger that would positively affect the environment.  As such, the ASA expected to see evidence that this was the case based on the full life cycle of the Plant Chef burger in comparison with a meat equivalent. Tesco did not hold any evidence in relation to the full lifecycle of any of the products in the Plant Chef range and the ASA was therefore unable to assess the product's total environmental impact over its life cycle compared to a meat burger.  The claims had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.

ASA ruling on Vegan Friendly TV ad

• Date of ruling: 8 June 2022
• Decision: partially upheld
• No. of complaints: 63

A TV ad for Vegan Friendly UK was not suitable for broadcast on TV regardless of scheduling restrictions because it was likely to cause distress to both younger and adult audiences. The ad showed three people sat around a table consuming meat products and discussing injustices in the world, interrupted by gruesome clips of animals in distress. The ad was given a Clearcast restriction preventing broadcast in or around programmes for children under 16.

The ASA upheld complaints that the ad contained graphic imagery and gratuitous violence towards animals, which caused unnecessary distress to viewers, and that the advert was scheduled inappropriately.  It considered that some of the clips were likely to cause distress, including to both younger and adult audiences.  This included an image of a skinned cow's head which was particularly graphic.  The ASA considered that the way the ad had been shot and edited contributed to the visceral nature of the ad.  The ASA disagreed with arguments from Clearcast and Vegan Friendly UK that the imagery shown in the ad was akin to what viewers would expect to see in cookery programmes or butcher/fishmonger shops.

The ASA did not uphold complaints which challenged whether the ad was offensive because it vilified meat eaters.

ASA ruling on Sky UK "perfect network"

• Date of ruling: 8 June 2022
• Decision: upheld
• No. of complaints: 1 (British Telecommunications Plc)

A TV and poster ad for Sky Mobile claimed that it was "the perfect network".  The ASA considered this to be an objective claim in the context of it being used in reference to "network".  Because the claim was for "the perfect network" and not "a perfect network", the ASA also considered it to be a comparative claim meaning that Sky Mobile was the only network which could be described as perfect.  Sky considered the claim to be subjective and based on their own opinion of their network.  On that basis, they did not provide objective evidence to substantiate the claim and it was held to be misleading.

ASA ruling on Samsung Electronics

• Date of ruling: 20 July 2022
• Decision: not upheld
• No. of complaints: 27

A TV and cinema ad for a smartwatch featuring a woman jogging alone at night attracted 27 complaints for being irresponsible and harmful at a time where there have been high profile cases where women have been attacked in similar circumstances.  Samsung acknowledged the ads might be perceived as insensitive but were unsure they breached the advertising codes and welcomed a ruling to provide clarity. The ASA acknowledged the sensitivities surrounding the issue but considered that running alone at night was not, of itself, likely to result in harm or injury.  They noted that the woman shown in the ads appeared alert and aware of her surroundings and was seen running in a well-lit, main street where other people were present. She was not shown behaving recklessly or obviously placing herself in danger.  For those reasons, the ASA concluded the ads did not encourage an unsafe practice and were not irresponsible.

ASA ruling on Heineken

• Date of ruling: 20 July 2022
• Decision: not upheld
• No. of complaints: 3

A tweet and TV ad for Strongbow cider featuring a purple goat nodding its head to garage music with the text G.O.A.T was held not to irresponsibly promote alcohol or contain content that would strongly appeal to under-18s.  In the TV ad, the ASA considered that the goat character was predominantly serious and realistic and, although the term G.O.A.T and the garage music might appeal to some viewers under 18, it was unlikely to be enough for it to be deemed as having a 'strong appeal' to under 18s.  For similar reasons, the tweet did not have particular appeal to under 18s.

ASA ruling on Astrasoft Projects

• Date of ruling: 13 July 2022
• Decision: upheld
• No. of complaints: 3

Three online display ads for online dating service SofiaDate depicting Ukrainian women were likely to cause serious offence.  The ads depicted the women in a sexual manner and referred to loneliness, connecting their vulnerability to sexual appeal.  The ASA noted that the war in Ukraine had heightened sensitivity about references to the country and the vulnerability of Ukrainian women had become an area of public concern.

ASA ruling on Arsenal Football Club Plc

• Date of ruling: 10 August 2022
• Decision: upheld
• No. of complaints: 1 (ASA)

This ruling replaced a previous ruling published on 22 December 2021 following an independent review which upheld the complaint but on revised grounds.  It concerned a Facebook and website post by Arsenal Football Club promoting fan tokens which were purchasable using a cryptocurrency. The ASA challenged the ads and held they were misleading because (a) they did not make sufficiently clear that the value of investments in paid-for fan tokens was variable and as cryptoassets they were unregulated, (b) omitted material information, including that the fan tokens were cryptoassets and had to be bought by first purchasing a cryptocurrency or that consumers were required to open a cryptoasset exchange account to obtain them, and (c) they trivialised investment in cryptoassets and took advantage of consumers by not making clear the risks.  Ads must make clear that cryptoassets are unregulated and that the value of investments is variable.  They must include all material information and not take advantage of consumer inexperience or credulity.

ASA ruling on Served Drinks

• Date of ruling: 6 July 2022
• Decision: upheld in part
• No. of complaints: 21

Three social media ads by the Ellie Goulding-owned beverage firm Served Drinks were banned for making health and nutrition claims about an alcoholic product and for implying that alcohol can overcome boredom.

The CAP Code states that ads for alcoholic drinks must not make any health, fitness or weight-control claims.  The claims in these ads included “If you’re like me, you love a drink but also enjoy an active lifestyle" and "I care about my well-being".  They were health claims because they implied that the product was beneficial for overall good health or health-related well-being.

The ads also included claims that the product was low in calories and contained no sugar.  It is permissible for advertisers to make factual numerical statements about the calorific content of an alcoholic drink,  but in this case the statements were preceded by the words "Our drinks only have" and in some cases a tick symbol which suggested that the products had the particular beneficial nutriitional properties of being low in calories/sugar.  They were held to be nutrition claims.

Statements in the ads about dry January were considered to encourage consumers to consume alcohol before the end of the month, with the overall impression being that consumers were invited to drink alcohol to overcome the boredom or tedium of dry January.  This included phrases such as "Forget Dry January” and “There’s no reason you can’t enjoy a drink without setting you back!”.

Complaints that the ads were irresponsible and likely to lead people to adopt styles of drinking that were unwise were not upheld.

ASA rulings on banner ads against Capri Sun and IMC Toys

• Date of rulings: 15 June 2022
• Decisions: upheld
• No. of complaints: 1 (ASA)

The ASA challenged and upheld rulings against three banner ads on Nick and NickJr which they found were unlikely to be obviously identifiable as such by their audience, young children, and therefore ‘enhanced’ disclosure was required. The ASA emphasised that younger children posed a particular challenge to marketers, noting that cognitive development was in its early stages meaning they sometimes could not recognise more integrated online marketing communications.  'Enhanced' recognition disclosure is required where an ad is directed at under 12s, is highly immersive or significantly integrated into the surrounding editorial content and unlikely to be identified clearly from the context in which it appeared. 

The ads in this case did use the disclosure labels "Advertisement / ADVERTISEMENT" and identified the name of the marketer, but these disclosures were not particularly prominent or interruptive enough for children to identify and used colour palettes which matched the ad graphic giving them the effect of blending the disclosures with the ads.  The ads therefore did not adequately fulfil the criteria required to satisfy the requirements of enhanced disclosure.

Want to know more?

Sign up to our newsletter