The past quarter saw the ASA publish 65 rulings, 57 of which were upheld in full, 5 of which were upheld in part and 3 of which were not upheld. The quarter saw a high number of complaints and rulings about adverts for financial services and products (a total of nine rulings), followed closely by rulings about adverts affecting children and the vulnerable. There were also a number of rulings concerning mini plug-in heaters with the ASA banning four similar adverts in one day (see the ASA's statement on this topic here). There were also a handful (five) of adverts that generated quite a significant number of complaints, with DeadHappy racking up a total of 115 complaints.
Below are our top ASA rulings from this quarter:
ASA ruling on DeadHappy
-
- Date of ruling: 15 February 2023
- Decision: Upheld
- No. of complaints: 115
The ruling concerned two paid-for social media ads for DeadHappy (a life insurance company). The ads were held by the ASA to be irresponsible and harmful and must not appear again. The ads featured a picture of the serial murderer, Harold Shipman, with captions below reading:
"Because you never know who your doctor might be … Sign up in 3 minutes … Prices from £1 a month … 2 months FREE."
"Life insurance to die for."
While DeadHappy apologised for any offence caused and stated that it was never its intention to offend, the ASA found that the ads trivialised and made light of the murders committed by Harold Shipman, such that they were likely to cause both serious and widespread offence to those who saw them. In particular, the ads would be especially distressing for those who had lost family members or friends to Shipman's crimes.
ASA ruling on Gorillas Technologies UK
- Date of ruling: 15 February 2023
- Decision: Upheld
- No. of complaints: 25
The adverts broadcast by Gorillas, a quick commerce grocery delivery company (recently acquired by Getir), appeared across TV, VOD and social media. All of the ads played on themes around alcohol and drugs with the ads featuring, for example, a man chopping lemons as the voiceover stated, “London loves acid”. The man smiled showing a lemon in his mouth. Another ad included the text, “Too many bevs last night? Order groceries to recover fast or keep the party going”.
Six separate rulings were upheld against the ads by the ASA on the basis that: (1) the ads were irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence; (2) the ads were unsuitable to be seen by children, or audiences of any age; (3) the ads were socially irresponsible; (4) it was irresponsible to direct ads for alcohol through TikTok; (5) the ads implied that alcohol had therapeutic qualities; and (6) the ads promoted excessive or unhealthy relationships with alcohol.
ASA ruling on Vodafone
- Date of ruling: 23 November 2022
- Decision: Not upheld
- No. of complaints: 18
Vodafone had a rough quarter, with three separate investigations and rulings from the ASA over its ads. Whilst the other two complaints were upheld, it's interesting that the ad that was the most complained-about of the three was not upheld.
The ads appeared on TV, VOD and YouTube and showed a paramedic responding to and treating a pregnant woman who was giving birth, talking to a midwife over the phone who was providing remote assistance to help deliver the baby. The midwife instructed the paramedic by phone to "…rotate the baby". The complainants were largely by medical professionals who challenged whether the depiction of a midwife instructing a paramedic to rotate a baby in the breech position was irresponsible.
However, the ASA took the view that, notwithstanding the requirement in the CAP and BCAP codes that ads must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and society, the ads were not in breach. The decision was primarily taken on the basis that the ads were (1) not providing medical advice; and (2) viewers would understand that the purpose of the ads was to highlight the paramedic’s use of a mobile network to contact and communicate with the midwife, as well as enabling them to stay connected during the emergency.
ASA ruling on Oasis Games
- Date of ruling: 23 November 2022
- Decision: Upheld
- No. of complaints: 1
Since CAP introduced the new rule banning harmful gender stereotypes in ads back in 2019, there have only been a handful of upheld rulings under the rule – Advertisements must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence. A criticism at the time the rule was announced is that there was little guidance around what might, or might not, be considered a gender stereotype. The rulings are starting to paint a picture of the ASA's approach on this topic.
A YouTube video ad for a mobile app game called "Refantasia: Charm and Conquer" contained a series of female anime/manga-style characters related to the game. The characters were shown wearing short skirts, looking at the viewer in a "sexually suggestive manner", emphasising the characters' breasts and bottoms. The complainant viewed the ad as sexist and that it objectified women. The ASA considered the ads in the whole to be sexual in their nature (irrespective of the fact that they had fantastical aspects to their appearance). The ASA went one step further and took the view that the ad's presentation of the characters made them appear to be under-18 and was in breach of the code.
ASA ruling on Rated People
- Date of ruling:14 December 2022
- Decision: Upheld
- No. of complaints: 11
In the second ad this quarter to be investigated for promoting harmful gender stereotypes, the ad in question appeared as a posted and featured text stating, “Building Work. It’s a man’s game. Bit like football was”. Alongside was an image of a hand holding a drill. Beneath that, smaller text stated, “If you’ve got the skills, we’ve got the jobs”.
The complainants believed that the ad implied that building work and employment in the construction industry was exclusive to men. The ASA agreed with the complainants and also commented on the fact that the ads presented changing attitudes to football in a negative light. The ad served to reinforce harmful gender stereotypes in both football and the construction industry and was therefore likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence.
ASA ruling on My Perfect Cosmetics Company
- Date of ruling: 14 December 2022
- Decision: Upheld
- No. of complaints: 10
The complaints and investigation arose from a TV ad for 'My Perfect Eyes' and the corresponding product listing on the My Perfect Eyes website. In the TV ad, a voiceover and text stated, "…My Perfect Eyes is 50% off" and "My Perfect Eyes SAVE 50%", respectively. The TV ad directed customers to the advertiser's website. The website shipping policy stated "We endeavour to pick, pack, and dispatch your order within 24-48 hours. For orders placed within the United Kingdom, please allow a further 2-4 business days to receive your order." The majority of the complaints arose from orders that had been placed but not received, whilst others challenged whether the scheduling of the ad after the offer closing date was misleading.
The ASA agreed and upheld the complaints on the basis that the ads were misleading, consumers would understand the shipping information as meaning that the product was available and would be delivered within a reasonable timeframe, which was not the case.
ASA ruling on Universal Music
- Date of ruling: 11 January 2023
- Decision: Upheld
- No. of complaints: 4
This decision garnered quite a lot of press coverage when it came out. It stemmed from a poster promoting Demi Lovato's new album which showed an image of the album cover with the album title "HOLY FVCK" alongside an image of Demi Lovato bound, bondage-style, on a large crucifix. The complaints posited that the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence; and/or was irresponsibly placed where children could see it.
On the first point, the ASA swiftly took the view that the allusion to a swear word on the poster, in an untargeted medium in a public place, where children are likely to see it was likely to result in serious and widespread offence.
In respect of the image of Demi on the crucifix, likened to Christ on the cross, the ASA upheld the complaint on the basis that this was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to Christians.
What's particularly interesting about the decision is that arguably it extends the ASA's remit from advertising material to adjudicating over album cover artwork – which is outside of the ASA's remit.
ASA ruling on LC International t/a Ladbrokes
- Date of ruling: 21 December 2022
- Decision: Upheld
- No. of complaints: 1
The complaint arose for a promoted tweet questioning, "
Can these big summer signings make the question marks over their performances go away?" against a video featuring footballers Philippe Coutinho, Jesse Lingard and Kalidou Koulibaly, with 'Ladbrokes' superimposed on the video. The question is whether the ad broke the new CAP rules requiring that ads for gaming or gambling must not have
strong appeal to those under 18 years of age. Given that the CAP guidance strictly sets out that using well-known football stars who are likely to be of appeal to under-18s in advertising for gambling or gaming is in breach of the rule, it was a bit of an own goal by Ladbrokes.
ASA ruling on Label Products t/a InstaHeat
- Date of ruling: 25 January 2023
- Decision: Upheld
- No. of complaints: 1
This ruling was one in a sweep of four similar rulings against ads for plug-in mini heaters announced on 25 January 2023. The rulings broadly dealt with the same point about cost-saving claims. In this case, the claim appeared in a paid-for online display ad and a website landing page, in the form: "InstaHeat. With This Trick You Can Heat Almost For Free This Winter." and "This is How Thousands of Brits are Heating up Their Homes and Slashing Electric Bills."
There were various other claims around the efficiency and heating capacity of the heaters which the ASA looked at, as well. InstaHeat failed to respond to the ASA's investigation. The ASA upheld the complaints on the basis that the claims were misleading, made unsubstantiated claims (largely relating to the heater's heating capacity and energy-saving capabilities) and made exaggerated claims.
ASA ruling on PPB Counterparty Services t/a Paddy Power
- Date of ruling: 8 February 2023
- Decision: Not Upheld
- No. of complaints: 2
The ruling related to two Paddy Power TV ads that were shown in November 2022. The two ads were both shown on TV and were versions of the same theme, featuring the ex-footballer turned media personality Peter Crouch conducting a choir singing Christmas carols. A voice-over sung a football-themed carol and promoted a free 'bet builder' on England World Cup games.
The complainants submitted that Crouch was likely to be of strong appeal to those of under 18 years of age, which Paddy Power responded to on the basis that Crouch's professional football career ended in 2019 so he was not a 'recent' retiree and his last appearance in an England shirt was back in 2010.
As distinct from the Ladbrokes decision mentioned above, the ASA agreed with Paddy Power. Influencing its decision, the ASA cited Crouch's historic footballing career relative to his subsequent appearances on TV programmes and other media engagements. Crouch is not particularly active across social media and does not have active Facebook, TikTok or Twitch accounts. The evidence showed that his Twitter followers were predominantly over-18. Amongst other considerations, the ASA also took into account whether the Christmas focus of the ad was likely to make it of strong appeal to under-18s but found that this was not the case (eg it did not feature Santa Claus). Indicative of the fine line between what will be considered to be of strong appeal to children and young people and what will not, the complaints were not upheld.
ASA ruling on Deutsche Lufthansa AG t/a Lufthansa
- Date of ruling: 1 March 2023
- Decision: Upheld
- No. of complaints: 1
The ruling related to a poster ad for the German airline, Lufthansa. The poster displayed an image of the front of a plane in flight with the fuselage of the plane represented by an image of the earth from space, with text beneath stating, “LUFTHANSA GROUP. CONNECTING THE WORLD. PROTECTING ITS FUTURE. #MakeChangeFly”.
Interestingly, the ASA did not receive any complaints about the ad but chose to challenge the ad (as to whether it gave a misleading impression of the airline's environmental impact) of its own accord. In upholding its own complaint, the ASA made it clear that the CAP Code requires that, "absolute environmental claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation". Lufthansa argued that the tagline was open to interpretation but would not be understood to be an absolute promise about its service and a distinct reference to protecting the environment. The ad did direct consumers to the airline's website for its #MakeChangeFly campaign which provided further information about the steps that Lufthansa is taking to protect the environment.
However, in the ASA's assessment, the initiatives highlighted in the campaign were targets to be delivered in pursuit of Lufthansa's stated goal in the future. They did not support the 'absolute green claim' that Lufthansa was "Protecting its [the world's] future".
