April saw the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) publish 30 rulings, each examining whether advertisers had met the standards set out in The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) and The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code).

Our advertising team has worked through every one of them, picking out the rulings we think are most relevant for businesses and marketers - plus, as always, one for fun

First rulings on ads for “less healthy foods”

The ASA published its first rulings under the new rules surrounding “less healthy foods” (LHF) which have applied since 5 January this year. Under these restrictions, any food or drink which falls into one of the legally defined categories and meets specific nutrient profile thresholds (high fat, salt, sugar 'HFSS') is banned from advertising online at any time, or between 5.30am and 9pm on TV. 

The complaint against an ad for a kebab restaurant was rejected because the products featured in the ad (e.g. “a rice bowl with chicken”, and a “doner burrito”) did not fall within the classification of a “less healthy food”. The advertiser was able to provide nutrient profile calculations to substantiate this and as a result the ad was ruled to comply with the CAP Codes. In contrast, newspaper banner ads featuring a variety of confectionery were ruled to beach the rules because the products fell within one of the listed categories and was HFSS under the nutrient profile model.

A TV ad for an online travel agency featuring free airport lounge access and a boy selecting a doughnut and grapes from a free buffet, was investigated under the rules restricting the advertising of LHF on television. The ASA took the view that the law underpinning the advertising restrictions did not differentiate by the type of business doing the advertising but whether consumers viewing the ad could reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for a less healthy food or drink product. The ad was found to be compliant because consumers would identify the ad as being for the perk of free airport lounge access and not an ad for a doughnut.

Review sites implying independence… need to be independent

A whole collection of rulings against websites which were presented as independent review sites but were actually run by a business were published in April. 

An ad for a website called consumertestreports.org, which was run by a company with a commercial interest in one of the products, referred to rankings for vacuum cleaners. Amending the landing page to include explanatory text was insufficient to deal with the fact the ad didn’t make the commercial intent clear. Websites named trustedbuyerguide.org and trustedguide.org were ruled misleading for similar reasons, although in those cases the advertisers didn’t respond to the ASA and were referred to CAP compliance.

The homepage of the website petfoodexpert.com which included the claim “100% unbiased” was ruled to breach the CAP Code, because although information was available in the FAQs that the website was run by a pet food retailer, it wasn’t clear from just looking at the website. The ASA considered consumers would understand the website provided an independent comparison service and that it implied that the retailer was acting for purposes outside their business. On this basis it was found misleading.

Comparative claims need to be substantiated

Staying with pets, but moving to comparative claims, a social media ad which featured a presenter walking down a supermarket aisle and making negative comments about various products was ruled to breach the rules on making comparisons with identifiable competitors. Blurring the products hadn’t been sufficient to make them unidentifiable and therefore claims such as “the worst pet food you will find” would need to be evidenced and verifiable, which was not the case. Claims regarding the percentage of fish and meat in the products were also ruled misleading.

And finally, if you go for a double meaning, remember the ASA will assess both of them

A poster for Fireball exhorting people to “go for the double!” was ruled to encourage excessive drinking. The advertiser explained the phrase was a commonly used darts expression and the imagery of a dart board alongside the two shot glasses would make that clear. The ASA was not receptive to this perspective, based on the fact the glasses appeared to be overflowing suggested abundance and excess rather than a standard measurement and the juxtaposition of the text was a call to action to drink multiple measures.