The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published ten rulings last week, including its inquiry into supermarket chain Tesco’s Clubcard ad, which claimed “Clubcard points are worth 2x the value of Nectar points”.
The ad was seen on 4 September 2024 and featured an image of a stack of sandwiches. The text on the ad stated: “Get more with” alongside the Tesco Clubcard logo.
Further text stated: “£1 from 100 Clubcard points*” and “50p from 100 Nectar points”.
Sainsbury’s challenged the ad on the basis that it was misleading, but the ASA did not uphold the motion.
It ruled that customers “would understand the ad to mean that, if they exchanged the same number of points using the respective loyalty card schemes, they would be worth twice as much to spend on groceries at Tesco than at Sainsbury’s”.
Next
The regulator also made a series of other rulings, including banning a Next ad featuring an “unhealthily” thin model, seen on 19 September 2024 on the retailer’s website. The ad was designed to showcase the brand’s “power stretch” leggings.
Arguing that the model had a “healthy and toned physique that aligned with the nature of their product”, Next did however admit to digitally altering the image to “maintain focus on the product”, without exaggerating her body shape.
The ASA ruled that the campaign breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility) as the watchdog argued that the angle used in the image “had a visible impact” on the model’s appearance.
Connect Sales
The ASA upheld a motion against Connect Sales. The paid for aid-for Facebook ad and website for Connect UK Land Auction were seen on 13 August 2024 and were identified for investigation by the watchdogs ‘Active Ad Monitoring System’.
The system uses AI to search for online ads that may break its regulations.
Copy for the Facebook ad stated: “Calling all Property & Land Investors. Get Exclusive Land Auction Investment Opportunities with 10-30% ROI (return on investment). Join Our Investor Mailing List Exclusive land auction investment opportunities sent directly to your inbox!”
The website landing page claimed, “When selling land at auction you can actually achieve more than you would with a local estate agent.”
The ASA challenged the ad on the basis that it was misleading as it didn’t demonstrate the risk of investment.
Furthermore, the regulator challenged whether the ad’s claims of “10-30% ROI” in the ad and “higher prices could be achieved by selling land at auction rather than by using an estate agent” could be substantiated.
Xootz
A TV ad and product page for children’s electric scooter and go-kart retailer Xootz was banned by the regulator.
Seen in October 2024, the TV ad showed a group of children playing with scooters and go-karts in a large indoor area. A voice-over stated, “Get ready to unleash the fun with Xootz. With powerful motors and superfast drifting… with the new electric motors and speeds of up to 10 kilometres an hour, race your friends, dodge, speed up and jump.”
The product page for Xootz’s “Elements Electric Scooter – Green” featured copy that read: “Kids will be able to dart in and out of obstacles at the local park… every journey along the pavement or around the park is super smooth”.
Both the ad and the product page were challenged by Wiltshire Council which believed the ads were misleading and irresponsible as e-scooters are banned in public places in the UK.
The ASA stated: “The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Wilton Bradley Ltd t/a Xootz to ensure future ads did not mislead and were not socially irresponsible by omitting that e-scooters could not be used legally in public places in the UK. We also told them to ensure their ads made clear that the use of e-scooters was currently permitted only on private land.”
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest agency-related news sent straight to your inbox each morning
Steadypay
A paid-for Meta ad for short-term loan provider Steadypay was deemed “irresponsible” by the ASA, after it encouraged consumers to borrow money for the Black Friday sales.
The ad was flagged for investigation by the watchdog’s ‘Active Ad Monitoring System’.
SteadyPay argued: “No applicant could access funds without being assessed by both SteadyPay’s credit risk engine and a credit reference agency. Before taking a loan, applicants received a fully regulated loan agreement and pre-contract information”
The regulator ruled: “The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told SteadyPay Ltd to ensure that future ads did not irresponsibly encourage consumers to borrow money to purchase items that they could not afford, particularly in relation to the Black Friday sales.”
Family Vision
The ASA ruled against a paid-for Facebook ad by “rent-to-own” credit broker Family Vision.
The regulator challenged the ad as it encouraged the public to take out credit agreements for Christmas spending. Family Vision argued against the decision highlighting that it carried out credit checks and risk checks on customers wishing to purchase a loan
The ASA stated: “The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Family Vision Ltd to ensure that future ads did not irresponsibly encourage excessive spending through the use of credit, particularly in relation to Christmas spending.”
High Seat
In another ruling, the regulator investigated furniture retailer High Seat after it received a complaint which challenged whether the firm’s claim of guaranteed delivery by Christmas was misleading.
A website, two emails, and a leaflet advertisement for the retailer stated that consumers had to order by 13 November to receive their order in time for Christmas.
The small print on the ads read: “Christmas cut-off dates may vary by product and are subject to change, please ask in-store for details”.
The ASA said: “The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told High Seat Ltd to ensure that their future marketing communications included all significant limitations and qualifications clearly and in a prominent place.”
Luxury Lodge Estates
A magazine ad for holiday property investment firm Luxury Lodges was banned by the ASA after it claimed consumers could receive “Up to £83,454 over two years guaranteed return”.
The complainant argued this was misleading as the return was based on historical success.
Additionally, the ASA challenged the ad as it failed to illustrate the risks of investment. It was also challenged on the basis that it did not make clear that additional fees would be applied.
The ASA highlighted that the ad could breach its code as it did not “ make clear that the advertised return related to rental income under the sublet guarantee, rather than the value of the investment.”
It stated: “The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Luxury Lodge Estates Company Ltd t/a Luxury Lodges to ensure that future ads made sufficiently clear that the value of investments was variable and could go down as well as up and that past performance did not necessarily give a guide for the future.”
Land Profits
The ASA banned three adverts -two paid-for Facebook ads and a website ad- from Land Profits, a land development and mentorship company.
The ads were banned as they failed to illustrate the risks of the investments. The ASA also highlighted that examples cited in the ads were unrepresentative. It also ruled that the profit claims in the adverts were misleading and could be not substantiated.
The ASA said: “The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Land Profits EDU Ltd t/a Land Profits that their future advertising must make clear that the value of investments was variable and could go down as well as up. We also told them to make clear that examples of past performance or experience were not necessarily a guide for the future and to ensure that they were representative. Finally, we reminded them of the requirement to hold substantiation for the objective claims in their advertising.”
Natur Vital
In the last of its rulings from last week, the regulator banned an ad from haircare brand Natur Vital due to misleading claims the products were safe for Paraphenylenediamine (PPD) allergy sufferers.
The Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA) understood that the product range contained paratoluene diamine sulfate (toulene-2,5 diamine sulfate), which could cause allergic reactions for those with an allergy to PPD.
It therefore challenged whether the ad was misleadingly implying that the products were safe for those with an allergy to PPD.
The ASA said: “We told Instituto Naturvita S.L. t/a Natur Vital to ensure that their ads did not misleadingly and irresponsibly imply that their hair colourants were safe for individuals with an allergy to PPD or other allergens.”
