The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published five rulings last week, including its investigation into an online dating service which claimed, “Ukrainian Women need the protection of strong and mature men from the West”.
The paid-for Facebook ad for SofiaDate was seen in October 2024, posted by an account called ‘Ladies for a Night’.
The ASA report said: “We considered that the ad was likely to be seen in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine, and that in that context it exploited a gender stereotype that potentially vulnerable women in a war setting needed the protection of men.”
It added: “On that basis we concluded that the ad featured harmful stereotypes, was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence.”
The ad must not appear again in that form and Astrasoft Projects Ltd t/a SofiaDate was told to ensure future advertising did not contain anything that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, particularly on the grounds of race or sex.
Scottish Power
The regulator also made a series of other rulings, including banning a Scottish Power TV ad featuring celebrity architect and TV personality George Clarke for “misleading viewers”.
The ad received three complaints that the spot was “indistinguishable” from the show.
The ASA stated: “We considered viewers were unlikely to quickly recognise the message as an ad distinguishable from editorial content and were instead likely to believe they were watching a programme. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.”
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest agency-related news sent straight to your inbox each morning
Virgin Radio
The ASA ruled against a Virgin Radio promotion “BEAT THE INTRO … AND WIN £5000”, which was designed to encourage listeners to link their Amazon Alexa accounts to News Broadcasting Skill, a voice-activated app on the Alexa device.
It was challenged by Compers News Magazine as the closing date deadline had been extended twice.
Virgin Radio responded to the challenge stating that the deadline had been extended as entrants had been having trouble linking their Alexa accounts to the app.
However, the ASA ruled against the radio station stating: “The promotion must not be run again in the form complained of. We told Wireless Group Media (GB) Ltd t/a Virgin Radio to ensure that they administered their future promotions fairly; avoided unnecessary disappointment and did not change closing dates unless unavoidable circumstances beyond their control made it necessary.”
Happy Hospital
An in-app ad for the game Happy Hospital was banned by the ASA after it featured a ghost icon of a baby and the word ‘FAILED’ above two women who had recently given birth.
The ad received one complaint that stated that it “trivialised miscarriage”. According to the ASA, it reached out to DragonPlus Game, the company behind the game, but received no response.
The ASA stated: “We considered that the ad, in portraying miscarriage or stillbirth in a trivial way, was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence, particularly in the context of an ad for a mobile app game.”
Winedrops
In the last of its rulings from last week, the regulator banned two social ads for an online wine retailer, Winedrops.
A paid-for Facebook ad seen in August 2024 featured three bottles of wine alongside a table with the copy: the “Price You’re Used To” with “Our Price”.
A secondary ad, posted to Instagram Story for winedropsclub, was seen in October 2024, and showed a hand holding a bottle of champagne and banknotes. The text read: “So cheap you’ll think it’s a scam…until the wine gets delivered”.
Complainants believed that the wine retailer’s claims were misleading as the prices shown under the “Price You’re Used To” heading were higher than the prices other retailers actually sold the bottles for.
They also stated the company was “displaying Trustpilot content in a way that could be misleading” as the retailer had a low score on the platform.
Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops acknowledged that they had made an error in the ad, accidentally having reversed the prices of two of the bottles of wine. The firm stated it would amend the error.
Regarding the Trust Pilot ratings, Winedrops clarified that the review and accompanying rating used in the ad was posted on their website.
It also stated that its Trust Pilot score was good and provided a link to the site which showed the firm had an overall rating of 4.4.
The ASA ruled in the first case that the implied savings claims were unsubstantiated as the “Price You’re Used to” claims did not include any of the supermarkets or larger wine retailers.
In the second case, it upheld the ASA motion banning the ad as the body understood the review had been left by an individual customer and was not the firm’s actual Trustpilot Rating.
