The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has published five rulings this week including a decision on two adverts from McDonalds, which were claimed to be “misleading”.
One of the ads in question was seen in October 2024 on TV and the fast-food chain’s app.
It advertised the restaurants’ ‘£5 Meal Deal’ and its ‘Feed the Family for £14.99’ offer.
The ad featured text that read: “The new £5 Meal Deal from McDonalds. Cheeseburger or Mayo Chicken, fries, four Chicken McNuggets, and a drink. For – guess what? That’s right – £5. It’s not called the £5 Meal Deal for nothing”. Images of each mentioned food item appeared on the screen. The image of Chicken McNuggets appeared with the text “BONUS SIDE”.
Additional copy on the ad stated: “From 11am. Not available on delivery. Participating restaurants. Deal includes a Mayo Chicken or Cheeseburger, four Chicken McNuggets, Medium Fries and a Medium carbonated drink. Drink upgrade fees apply. Please check the kiosk or ask in-restaurant for details. Subject to availability.”
One complainant believed that the “bonus side” claims were misleading as the total cost of the items was less than £5.
However, McDonald’s said the total cost for four items would be £6.78. They explained that the cost was calculated using the mean price of six Chicken McNuggets at £4.19 as they did not sell four McNuggets as a menu item.
It added that consumers generally understood the term “meal deal” to mean a main, a drink and a side/snack. It added that its other meal offerings at McDonalds such as its ‘Extra Value Meal’ consisted of three items. The £5 meal deal included an extra side.
The watchdog ruled in favour of McDonald’s.
A second advert appeared in November 2024, advertising McDonald’s “Feed the Family for £14.99” offer, available on delivery only.
A complainant challenged the ad on the basis that the price advertised did not include delivery or service fees. The restaurant reported that delivery charges varied on location and therefore could not be calculated in advance. The app told customers at ordering stage that delivery charges applied.
The ASA ruling the advert breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.18, 3.19 and 3.20 (Prices).
EE
The regulator published a series of other rulings, including one banning an ad from mobile phone network EE. Appearing in October 2024, the marketing drive ran across TV, radio, paid-for social media and digital posters.
It was challenged by 21 complainants, including Vodafone and Community Fibre who challenged the ad on the basis its claims were misleading.
The telecom firm claimed that “EE’s new Wi-Fi 7 router makes every device work better”, and its references to specific devices, which the complainants challenged, as most devices at the time did not support Wi-Fi 7.
The ASA upheld the ban, stating the ad must not appear again in its current form.
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest agency-related news sent straight to your inbox each morning
Pokerstars
In another ruling, the watchdog banned an ad from Pokerstars on the basis its claims portrayed, condoned or encouraged gambling behaviour.
The ad featured an Instagram reel of two people in a casino, Rory and McKola. Rory said: “Can you believe that? I invested £100 and five minutes later, [bleep]”.
The video then flashed back to provide context, with McKola greeting viewers. “Yes people, what’s going on? McKola and Rory here, and PokerStars Casino have set us a little challenge. We’ve got a £100 each Ror[y], 10 spins, who’s gonna win?”
It shows McKola winning the competition, earning £662.50.
Pokerstars acknowledged that the ad broke CAP code, stating the ad was published in error. The gambling platform added it was removed upon receiving a complaint from Instagram.
A3 Games
The ASA upheld a ruling against an ad for Top Girl, a game by A3 Games, on the basis that it sexualised and objectified women.
It appeared on 20 December 2024 and featured a video of a young female character in wet, see-through clothes.
The watchdog stated that although the advert did not feature nudity, it considered the “styling and poses shown throughout were likely to be seen as sexually suggestive”.
According to the regulator, A3 Games did not respond to its concerns, which it stated was a breach of the CAP code.
The ASA said: “We told A3 Games Pte Ltd t/a Top Girl to ensure that their ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype by objectifying and sexualising women. We referred the matter to the CAP Compliance team.”
John Mills
The final ruling the regulator made this week banned an ad for Velform shapewear by JML.
It featured several before and after scenes of women wearing the brand’s Velform Cross Compression Shaper alongside a voiceover which said: “The incredible figure enhancing shapewear […] Velform Cross Compression Shaper flattens your tummy, shapes away love handles, and minimizes muffin tops. Wrapping around your sides to smooth away unwanted love handles. Then the Cross Compression wraps around your back to help smooth away back fat […] it will help you achieve your perfect shape […] and trims your waistline.”
The ad was challenged as complainants believed the before and after scenes were digitally edited.
John Mills LTD, which trades as JML, stated it didn’t believe the ad misled audiences on the capabilities of the compression shapewear product. It added that they had carried out a study to ensure the claims were accurate.
The watchdog acknowledged the claims in the ad were based on a consumer study, however ,it stated that the audience’s impression of the efficacy of the product would be informed by the before and after scenes.
As additional evidence, Clearcast provided a presentation of “before and after” images of participants wearing the product.
The ASA compared the before and after pictures in the ad to the presentation they received.
It stated: “We examined the ‘before and after’ image presentation of participants wearing the product, which we understood featured different individuals from the models who appeared in the ad.
“We considered that whilst there was a visible difference once the product was worn, the effects were significantly less pronounced than those seen in the ad. We considered the image presentation alone was not representative of the visual claims made in the ad and was therefore insufficient to substantiate the efficacy of the product.”
The ASA ruled that the ad must not appear again in the form complained of.
